This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

i see no reason for a rewrite; the previous version enjoyed wide consensus, was well-sourced, and was appropriately balanced and neutral. i find the coverage in the rewrite a little selective in focus. ITAQALLAH 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's OK as long as that POV and basically OR sentence I removed stays out, or is rewritten. - Merzbow 19:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

the section makes no mention of the other general meanings associated with the word, and is at times rather sweeping and unspecific in its language. a lot of the information (such as jizya, dhimmi, etc.) has already been covered in the later section. ITAQALLAH 19:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The material on jizya and dhimmi is very closely related to jihad so it's better to leave it there. The section on other religions still needs some, and it's a more appropriate place for more general material. Other than that, i don't see any specific objections to the current version, which is coherent and impeccably sourced. Beit Or 20:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If they are so "closely related" as you claim, can you quote a passage from EoI's article on Jihad that makes the connection explicit? They are related but not as you claim. -- Aminz 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic, if any. If you want to argue about the word "closely" , then you may want to find a different forum for such hairsplitting. Beit Or 20:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to justify your "claims". Everybody can make claims. If you take a look at http://www.answers.com/jihad&r=67, you'll see that neither "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia" nor "Mideast & N. Africa Encyclopedia" nor "Islamic Dictionary" mention jizya or dhimmi. -- Aminz 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I don't have to present evidences against your claims, but you need to justify it in the first place. -- Aminz 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I seem to recall arguing earlier (and unsuccessfully) that this material, "Forced conversion was rarely practiced or sanctioned, and non-Muslims in a Muslim state were traditionally allowed to live as dhimmis," was a very typical attempt to "correct a misconception" by rebutting something which was never actually said. Now I see we are making the opposite argument. I don't understand how Beit Or's material on dhimmi and jizya can be irrelevant, yet this Esposito material, which is about the very same thing (though less informative and with a different rhetorical thrust), is relevant. If anything, I'd think what conquered peoples do have to do is inherently more topical than what they don't have to do (of which there is a potentially infinite list.)

This passage, "In broader usage, the term has accrued both violent and non-violent meanings. Among other things, it can imply striving to live a moral and virtuous life, to spreading and defending Islam, and to fighting injustice and oppression" was being given seriously undue weight, when "For most of Muslim history, jihad was taken to mean armed struggle for the expansion and defense of the Islamic state." If we're to include it, we should do so along with the Shi'a "greater vs. lesser jihad" concept. Metaphorical usages of Jihad are just not that important. Proabivouac 21:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Jihad in Islamic jurisprudence should be given priority, for that is the connotation when the word jihad is typically used. i don't see how giving mention to other uses in Muslim life (the greater/lesser jihad discussion isn't relevant here) can be considered undue weight at all, especially when EoI mentions it - "Jihad: etymologically signifies an effort directed towards a determined objective. (Cf. ijtihād : the work of the scholar-jurists in seeking the solution of legal problems; mujāhada or, again, jihād : an effort directed upon oneself for the attainment of moral and religious perfection...". ITAQALLAH 03:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not try to confuse etymology, meaning, and concept. EoI talks about the Arabic word "jihad"; this section is about the Islamic concept of jihad. These are not one and the same thing. Beit Or 18:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

you are limiting the "Islamic concept of jihad" to its application in jurisprudence, when it clearly has uses beyond those boundaries. ITAQALLAH 18:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the term "etymology" is somewhat of a red flag here. I must agree with Beit Or that the derivation of words is basically irrelevant, as this is not an Arabic etymological dictionary. Proabivouac 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

the quote does express it's used to refer to "moral and religious" perfection, so it's not just a question of Arabic etymology, as it possesses a religious dimension. the Esposito ref also substantiates that. ITAQALLAH 18:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're confusing Arabic language and Islam. It's like saying that crusade is not a necessarily a medieval expedition aimed at retaking the Holy Land from the Muslim, but can also refer to efforts against one's moral or societal vices, for example, a "crusade against drugs". Yes, just like "jihad", the word "crusade" can be used in many different meanings (including religious ones), but then an encyclopedia is not a dictionary. Beit Or 19:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

not quite: the EoI is stating that jihad also refers to attaining religious (i.e. Islamic) perfection, and Esposito says the same. so this particular derivation has a context in Islamic teaching - which should be noted. ITAQALLAH 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, please observe that while EoI gives some cursory treatment to the etymology and figurative meanings of jihad, 99% of the article is devoted to warfare. I don't see any reason why Wikipedia article should not follow suit. Beit Or 19:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

it states quite plainly in the introduction that it will restrict the discussion solely to warfare (that is, after all, the primary meaning), yet even then the coverage of the EoI article on the fiqhi aspects of jihad is pretty patchy. ITAQALLAH 02:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, you have made sweeping changes without regard for consensus, and then revert citing 'massive removal' of 'pertinent information'. there is no need for repetition of the jizya/dhimmi material - that belongs in the discussion concerning Islam and other religions. the reference is of excellent quality - naturally - yet you use rather unspecific and misleading language, for example:

• "there can be no permanent peace with non-Muslims" - misleading, the prose is talking about the non-Muslim state.
• "Jihad against Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians ceases when they submit to the authority of Islam" - please at least try to represent the prose within the correct context. it's talking about the tolerance of these communities within the Islamic community despite the aim of universality of the Islamic state.
• "which can be repudiated as soon as the circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities" - of course, there is no mention of what is EoI says later: "It is, however, recognized that such repudiation should be brought to the notice of the infidel party, and that he should be afforded sufficient opportunity to be able to disseminate the news of it throughout the whole of his territory." - and without such qualifications the prose becomes all the more misleading.

the focus of the prose sourced to EoI really is pretty selective. lastly, you excise reliable sources offering other information where the EoI's coverage is thin, such as the other meanings of jihad. ITAQALLAH 21:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The first of these objections seems to me quite reasonable, accordingly I've changed "non-Muslims" to "non-Muslim states." The second, well, six of one, half dozen of the other - we're not obliged to reproduce any source's rhetorical narrative, the question is whether the facts are being neutrally presented here. As for the requirement to give warning to the non-Muslim state, that seems reasonable to add, the requirement to spread the news is probably more detail than we need here. Proabivouac 02:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The first comment is indeed reasonable, but the phrase with "states" is not ideal either. What if non-Muslims do not have a state and live, say, as a nomadic tribe? The second has no merit - as Pro said it's more or less the same thing only wrapped in the rhetoric of "tolerance". The third is a great example of what another editor called "defensive writing" on Islam-related topics: "bad news" must necessarily be balanced with "good news"; to wit, "bad news" that truces with non-Muslim states may be renounced at will must be slightly offset with "good news" that Muslims are not that savage and must inform the enemy about repudiating the truce. It's interesting that earlier an attempt to insert some "bad news" about Muhammad prompted cries of "too much space". The same consideration apparently does not apply to the mechanics of truce repudiation. Beit Or 18:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

you cite the Muhammad section as an application of your theory, where you were adamant that relatively unimportant conflicts with Jewish tribes needed substantial mention despite other, far more significant events, going totally unmentioned to your content (perhaps you've the got theory reversed). ITAQALLAH 18:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The "relatively unimportant conflicts with Jewish tribes" enabled Muhammad's conquest of Mecca. Without the property pillaged from the Jews of Medina and Khaybar, Muhammad would have been unable to sustain his war against the Quraysh. My point, though, is not about Muhammad, but rather about what I see as a wholly unacceptable approach to writing Islam-related articles (though many contentious subjects suffer from this attitude too), namely, that any information is assessed mainly based on its propaganda value rather than on its encyclopedic value. Beit Or 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

well, why make such a far-fetched connection with the conquest of Mecca (are you really asserting its importance is based upon this?), why not demand mention of what was directly at the centre of the conflict, like the Treaty of Hudaybiyya? yes, i do see an unacceptable approach to writing Islam-related articles, exactly as you relate - and some of those problems i feel are evident in the changes you've instituted. ITAQALLAH 23:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Both Vaglieri and Stillman make that connection. Proabivouac 00:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

i'm not saying it's untrue at all - the point is that if the conflicts are mentioned because they ultimately contributed to enabling the conquest, why do we not mention the other, more obvious events directly facilitating the conquest? i don't really care that it's not mentioned, it's just that i see some of the same behaviour from those who allege it of others. ITAQALLAH 00:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if there's any obvious and fairly uncontestable parallel I see here, it's between the "though" and "however" clauses, both sourced, both argumentative and meant to be, towards which we seem to be simultaneously adopting opposite approaches: [1], [2] If we could start somewhere, it might be to agree to avoid these types of clauses except in the most compelling instances, in favor of positive assertions which are qualified appropriately to begin with. Proabivouac 00:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

i agree with that. i would invite you to reword the first sentence how you see fit. ITAQALLAH 00:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the sentence on "some modern Muslims" is certainly not acceptable for a general article on Islam, and I object strongly to the unexplained and stubborn deletion of the next sentence, which gives important background for the "some modern Muslims" stuff. Beit Or 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Which modern Muslims is my question. That way we can judge its significance, to see if it should be here at all. Perhaps it is too marginal. But if we can find that it is significant enough to be here, and appropriately qualified/attributed, I can't see any need to argue against it in text. Proabivouac 00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Beit Or, you point to the fact that this is a general article on Islam, yet you have no problem endorsing convoluted hair-splitting about the varying levels of fard, or repeating tangental information already sufficiently addressed in the article. in fact, you don't seem to mind it being mentioned as long as an unequivocal and needless rejoinder is latched on, so this particular point appears rather flimsy. ITAQALLAH 02:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I correct that the objection to the long passage about when Jihad ceases is that this duplicates some material found in other religions section? If so, a summary along the lines of, "Jihad ceases when non-Muslims submit to Islamic rule, becoming dhimmis or converting to Islam," might be appropriate. The payment of kharaj can be added to the section below about the dhimmi. Proabivouac 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's the fault of the "Other religions" section, which is fixated on the dhimmi issue instead of discussing the more general issues of the Islamic approach to other religions. Beit Or 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

the relationship between Islam and other religions, including when people of other religions are within an Islamic state (hence discussion of dhimma/jizya), is highly relevant to that section. ITAQALLAH 19:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my comment (well, no surprise here). I was pointing out that the section is fixated on dhimma and omits other highly topical matters; I never said that dhimma is irrelvant to this article. Beit Or 19:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

dhimma/jizya is a large part of any discussion concerning Islam and other religions. i noted that as it's already discussed here, there is absolutely no need to mention it again in the Jihad section where it's just redundant. you cite others' "stubborn" deletion of unencyclopedic prose, yet you have shown respect for neither consensus nor compromise, making contentious and sweeping changes without first proposing or discussing them on talk, and then "stubborn"ly rejecting any attempt at compromise or reconciliation. ITAQALLAH 02:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• that was part of my objection, Proabivouac, and that dropping in when jihad ceases is abrupt and can be misleading, especially if the juristic conditions for its commencing, or the way in which it is to be conducted, go unmentioned (misleading, because it implies that jihad requires none of the aforementioned conditions, that it is universal, ongoing - even today - in the absense of any indication otherwise - and of course, it presumes that all jihad is offensive in nature due to the generality of the statement) ITAQALLAH 19:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that some of what you say may reflect concern that the reader might equate the traditional Islamic concept of jihad with the "jihad" of militant or terrorist organizations, as that's the only debate about the manner in which it's to be conducted with which I'm familiar. Traditionally, jihad was carried out through conventional military means under the direction of various Islamic caliphates. What to do when there is no Caliph isn't addressed (nor could it have been addressed) in Sunnah. There is something calling itself jihad today, whether this is legitimately Islamic I don't know (in fact I think it inherently impossible to decide,) but this is no longer being discussed in this section - perhaps mention of it should be restored?

What conditions for commencing and manner of conduct do you think important here? Proabivouac 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

yes... jihad as discussed in juristic primers can quite easily be unintentionally equivocated with things that may or may not be considered jihad - especially when media discussion about the topic and its usage of the word in a modern day context - and that most of our audience will likely be more aware of the latter context than the former. a few conditions for: offensive jihad - requires an amir of a state; an actual declaration, preceded by an offer to the state to submit. as for conduct, there are specifications such as targetting combatants only, not implementing legal punishments (hadd) in wartime, as well as others. i'd opine that a sentence like "Jihad may be declared against a non-Muslim state if it refuses to convert or submit to Islamic rule" is a little more acceptable than one that starts with "Jihad ceases..". ITAQALLAH 20:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've rearranged things somewhat (mostly with an eye to make the section shorter.). Beit Or's cessation conditions naturally follow "perpetual in nature", so I've left them there, but moved the declaration material to the lead. I hope this works for everyone. Proabivouac 03:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

these are some very productive changes. i think this version is more acceptable. i do think we can do something to trim the second paragraph, and i propose the following: the first para finishes with "Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against a non-Muslim state if it refuses to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule." i was thinking we could continue that para with "As such, Jihad is perpetual in nature; in theory, there can be no permanent peace with non-Muslim states, only truces which can be repudiated when circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities." - therefore, we can then do without the rest of the repetition in the second para because jihad's perpetuality is linked to the refusal of the non-Muslim state to convert/submit (thus we don't need to state that jihad will cease if they do so, when we have stated that jihad will commence if they don't do so). the material proposed for removal is all covered in the Islam#Other religions section. what do you think? ITAQALLAH 14:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that - I really don't know. I see why you're saying its duplicated (although the current Other religions section neglects kharaj), but I'm not certain this is less relevant in one section than the other. One frames it as a coherent active narrative - jihad continues until a tributary relationship is established, purchasing for the ahl al-kitab dhimmi status- the other presents dhimma as an enduring condition under Islamic authority, with tribute presented as its secondary feature. (I also observe that the portion of the Qur'an which has been traditionally interpreted to speak to this matter follows the active narrative exactly.) Proabivouac 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

i see.. how about we retain mention of jizya/kharaj (as that is directly related to the cessation), and defer mention of dhimma ("...,thereby receiving the status of dhimmis,...") to the other religions sect? ITAQALLAH 21:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit new, but I'm wondering where someone made the determinatio that within Islamic jurisprudence jihad refers to waging war for global domination or to that effect...if its unsourced to credible Islamic jurists it should be deleted becuase it demonstrates visible bias.

(Outdent) Not sure who added the immediately preceding comment, but I'd like to ask the same question and unless it can be sourced, it should be removed. → AA ^{( talk • contribs)} — 17:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. MezzoMezzo 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's sourced. Look for the soonest number in superscript. Arrow740 20:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure, does that soonest number include that reference to Islamic jurisprudnce? I just want to make sure its not assumed b/c its the subsequent superscript. Again, I'm new but why is nearly all of the Jihad section based on this EoI? Also, as far as I can tell, this source is accessible to a select few, anyone know how the layman can access it w/out paying a fortune? Thanks.

This section is the very opposite of balanced if it ignores the preaching of some clerics today who equate jihad with a holy war against Israel. I added some referenced information on this subject (from a non-biased source) which was promptly removed, with a comment to take it to the talk page. I know the intention is to present Islamic in the best possible light, but there is no excuse for ignoring a phenomenon that is so significant today -whether or not it is pleasant to hear. This is supposed to be an encyclopdia and to help people understand the world. By making believe jihad does not exist in the sense of armed struggle against "infidels" (which includes Israel) you are making a joke of Wikipedia as an information source. I wrote that "some Muslim clerics" think this way. To ignore that is either wishful thinking or a deliberate attempt to deceive the reading public. -- Gilabrand 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, I hadn't meant to revert this edit, [3] only my own attempt to restore the Esposito material about forced conversion being rare - which didn't really work, because the paragraph is about jurisprudence, not practice (and anyhow doesn't say that conversion of dhimmis is required.) However, since I have reverted it, what is the problem that you'd meant to correct? Proabivouac 20:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

the first part of the sentence is nowhere to be found in Lewis, even implicitly (from my own reading anyway). the point Lewis is making about the economy was that the majority of economic reliance was upon dhimmis - however, as there was a mass wave of new mawalis (soon outnumbering the Arabs) who subsequently did not need to pay jizya and paid the lowest zakat rates, then this resulted in decreased revenue and increased expenditure. as a result, conversions were at times actually discouraged. the prose in the article doesn't reflect that, and as i was copyediting to trim the text a bit i removed the extraneous point. i also reinserted the information re Abu Muslim, for mawali discontent was only part of the reason for Ummayad destruction. Shi'i resistance to the Ummayads, in alliance with individuals like Abu Muslim, found some support amongst mawalis. ITAQALLAH 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

i'll reinstitute that change if you're happy with it. ITAQALLAH 17:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not the knowledge necessary to arrive at an opinion on this, though I may develop one as the situation becomes clearer. My reversion of your material was inadvertent (look at the edit times!) Proabivouac 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read Lewis (and other sources on this subject) carefully. The whole point of the existence of mawali was that non-Muslims couldn't convert to Islam merely at will: they first had to find a willing Arab patron who would accept them as clients (mawali). If Lewis is unclear on that point (though in my reading, he is pretty explicit), then probably Hawting is (The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate AD 661-750, p. 4): "Although it can be debated whether the Koran was addressed to all men or to the Arabs only, the Umayyads and the Arab tribesmen who first conquered the Middle East regarded their religion as largely exclusive of the conquered peoples. There was no sustained attempt to force or even persuade the conquered peoples to accept Islam, and it was assumed that they would remain in their own communities paying taxes to support the conquerors. Although from the start there was some movement of the conquered into the community of the conquerors, the separation of Arabs from non-Arabs was a basic principle of the state established as a result of the conquests. This is clear both from the procedure which a non-Arab had to adopt in order to enter Islam and from the fact that there were, from time to time, official measures designed to prevent such changes of status. Islam was in fact regarded as the property of the conquering aristocracy." Beit Or 18:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

i see. thanks for the extract. ITAQALLAH 18:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As Aminz pointed out below (and in his edit), the Esposito cite clearly lists additional reasons for the widespread discontent with the Umayyads, in addition to the situation of the mawalis. Edit-warring to remove this is utterly pointless. - Merzbow 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or's version is closer to Lewis' treatment in The Arabs in History. Arrow740 03:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I split the difference between Lewis and Esposito. That's why multiple cites are listed. - Merzbow 03:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The two versions are completely different. Arrow740 04:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

last time i checked, the Cambridge History of Islam also notes a number of reasons. ITAQALLAH 04:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It is important to note that in the early years Islam was only a religion for Arabs (or people closely connected to Arabs). Lewis mentions this in his intro to The Arabs in History. Arrow740 04:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, did you read the Esposito cite? He lists the mawali reason first and foremost. There is no justification for removing the other listed reasons as contributing factors. - Merzbow 07:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The current version also mentions inter-Arab strife as a reason for the Umayyad downfall. There is no need to list all the reasons in the general article about Islam. However, it is very topical and fascinating to note the view of Islam as a religion for Arabs only, which was dominant under the Umayyads, and how it contributed to their overthrow. Beit Or 14:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Lapidus mentions the poor Arabs of Khurasan and the Shi'a as significant factions. In fact, he says the revolt was supported "largely by Arabs" (that's a quote), mentioning the mawali second. I've added mention of this, supported by Lapidus. Unless you want to rewrite half the History section to remove all Lapidus material, please let it be. - Merzbow 15:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am busy now but can someone correct Beit Or's selective representation of the significant reasons for the downfall of Ummayad. -- Aminz 21:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. [4] -- Aminz 03:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a POV tag needs to be added the jihad section. As far as I know there is no unique scholarly opinion on the issue of permanent peace with non-Muslims. What does "jihadist" mean? Is that an english word? -- Aminz 02:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See for example, War and Its Discontents by J. Patout Burns Georgetown University Press says:

"Islam, as a belief system with a specific scriptural foundation and an accompanying sacred history, took root in many different societies and cultures. In none, I think it's fair to say, did Islam as such repress any existing developments that were towards nonviolence. There is no theological reason an Islamic society could not take a lead in developing nonviolence today, and there is every reason that some of them should."

So, the POV bits of "there can be no permanent peace with non-Muslim states" should be taken out. -- Aminz 02:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, that quote says nothing at all about Islamic doctrine. Proabivouac 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Islamic theology is part of Islam. -- Aminz 02:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What does he mean by nonviolence? Islam mandates all sorts of violence. Arrow740 03:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So do the laws of any state, and common sense. Proabivouac 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, jurisprudence isn't theology. Your argument here is totally illogical. See also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We are talking about how jihad has been defined, not how Burns (not an expert on Islam anyhow) speculates it one day might be defined. This is one of the flimsiest rationales for a POV tag I've ever seen. Proabivouac 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The scholarly views on the relation of Islam, on the whole, with matter in dispute is diverse. On this page and other pages, you should avoid pushing anti-Islamic sentiments. -- Aminz 05:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's your religion. We didn't make up jihad. It's frustrating when an editor finds a quote that could possibly be used so as to further his agenda, then refuses to explain who the author is or how he is using key terms. Arrow740 05:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with jihad. -- Aminz 05:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is, don't say Pro is pushing anti-Islamic sentiments when he's only insisting that we source the truth to good sources. Arrow740 06:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Arrow740. Proabivouac 06:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

...That is some kind of joke, right? Do you all need some help here? Homestarmy 06:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're feeling very generous, you might remove Aminz' baseless POV tag. Proabivouac 06:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Thanks. -- Aminz 06:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, you are well aware that I do not "push sentiments" of any variety. Your arguments here are incoherent and illogical, and your source, not ideal to begin with, does not say what you want it to say.

You are right that there is nothing wrong with jihad, besides our own moral evaluations and projections. The doctrine is that mankind, in submission to the will of God, is obliged to enjoin good and forbid evil, and to that end establish Islamic rule, through force where necessary. If one believes that the benefits of Islamic rule outweigh the downsides of the use of force, then aggressive jihad makes complete sense: one is liberating conquered people from jahiliyya, and offering them a chance to avoid hellfire. Conversely, if one thinks Islamic rule undesirable, or that jahiliyya isn't all that bad, then jihad might not be justified.

What Islam definitely isn't is pacifism; see Sunnah. Burns (and perhaps you) may think it should be, or one day might be, but that's totally irrelevant here. Proabivouac 06:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What are Burns' credentials in this area? - Merzbow 06:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's his write-up: [5] Proabivouac 06:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A great deal has been written about the issue of Islam, Jihad, Warfare, non-Violence, etc etc(e.g. see [6]), and there is a wide range of views; not just the one. I just pointed out to one source. You want another one: check out "An Islamic Approach to Peace and Nonviolence:A Turkish Experience, Zeki Saritoprak, The Muslim World, Vol.95"

You can find pages and pages of arguments from the Qur'an and Sunna... quoting "great Islamic figures of contemporary Turkey" who believe that our era is different from the past; putting the past in the context of its time, argue that "jihad should be through the bright proofs of the Qur’an and not through the use of force"; describing "our time as the time of spiritual jihad, 'struggle against spiritual destruction should not be physical, but spiritual.'". Proab, please don't post on my talk page. If you would like to talk about the article, please use this talk page. -- Aminz 07:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully their "interpretation" will be widespread. However wikipedia is not a place to promote falsehoods. Arrow740 07:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you want me to post on "your" talk page? Proabivouac 07:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• one major problem i have found with the prose is that it presumes the presence of an Islamic state, while this is an important caveat without which the meaning becomes rather distorted. it's also poor style to discuss when Jihad stops, when we fail to discuss its preconditions and how it is commenced- but even then, that discussion is already covered well enough in the Islam and other religions section. i have tried a tweaking to account for these things, and i hope it is an acceptable compromise. ITAQALLAH 17:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to this sentence, "Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state..." I agree that is an improvement, and eliminates the redundancy of "defense or expansion" later in the section. Proabivouac 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as to why the phrase about dhimmis being a lower status was removed. How is that POV? Muslim law says they have to pay higher taxes (the jizya), which is plainly discriminatory. — Rickyrab | Talk 12:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't infer from fact X (paying of jizya) that Y is the case (they are lower class). This is original research which has no place in WP. If you can find any reliable sources which show that dhimmis were treated as a lower class, then you can include it with the relevant reference. → AA ^{( talk • contribs)} — 12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. Sorry about that. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

All [7] [8] these kind of edits which are done without references are POV. If you wish to change the use multiple references and do not add your personal views here. They will be reverted back. --- A. L. M. 12:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, such edits are not necessarily POV. However, at least one of them DOES violate WP:NOR, as AA pointed out above. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Learn about Islam from featured article: "Thus jihad is perpetual in nature; there can, theoretically, be no permanent peace with non-Muslim states, only temporary truces, which can be repudiated as soon as the circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities ". Woh that is great and sourced too and administrator User:Briangotts even do not allow to take it out [9].--- A. L. M. 14:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks like OR again as the EoI does not make any such statements (and there are no other sources indicated). → AA ^{( talk • contribs)} — 15:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It was added without citing any additional sources and seems to be OR. → AA ^{( talk • contribs)} — 15:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

the EoI does refer to its perpetuality, but then again the EoI does indeed mention the opinions of eminent, early jurists like Sufyan ath-Thawri who considered the offensive jihad to be mustahab as opposed to wajib. ITAQALLAH 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not ILIKEITPEDIA. Al-Thawri's school of jurisprudence disappeared without a trace about a thousand years ago. Please do not try to bring those views that have good propaganda value instead of those that are dominant. Beit Or 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

i don't see the relevance of your comments, i'm simply mentioning what the EoI itself feels appropriate to mention. ITAQALLAH 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is for suggesting edits to the article. If your comment above on al-Thawri didn't suggest any, it shouldn't have been made. Beit Or 19:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing that's missing here is an short explanation of how the Shi'a view on jihad differs from the Sunni. - Merzbow 17:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Recently, some Muslim scholars have said that jihad only obligates warfare of a defensive nature." Maybe so, but this is the general, introductory article on Islam. It must be about the most common views and practices, not on what some (which?) scholars have recently said. A discussion of the whole range of opinions is fine, but please confine it to subsidiary articles. I undertand Merzbow complaint that the next sentence only serves to debunk this one, but, sorry, they can only leave this article together. Beit Or 18:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We might rephrase this by attributing it and avoiding the appearance of taking sides...though I observe that the word "recently" pretty much makes this clear without saying it out loud. Proabivouac 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• the EoI mentions some of those authorities who didn't regard the offensive jihad as wajib (ath-Thawri and some other classical scholars). absolutely: this is indeed an introductory article, yet the focus and tone of your version is misleading and inappropriate, as i have mentioned in a few sections above. ITAQALLAH 19:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You haven't made much of a case against it. You just seem to be saying that some classical authorities differed on the level of goodness of offensive war. Arrow740 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

if the classical authorities differed as to whether it was mustahab or wajib, they are differing over whether or not it is obligatory. ITAQALLAH 23:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, I've made a very specific point on a specific issue to which you gave no adequate response. Rants like "the focus and tone of your version is misleading and inappropriate" are uncivil and do not help your case at all. Beit Or 19:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, please spare me the wikilawyering. if you're going to make baseless accusations of incivility, then please do so without espousing your own. ITAQALLAH 23:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't address his points? Arrow740 23:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

i've already expressed that the opinion concerning jihad has been covered in the EoI. yet, it's being argued that it's too much for an introductory article. i have also expressed concern with the general tone of the changes made: if this sentence is too much, what on earth are we doing repeating information already in the article - for which most of a section is already dedicated? what are we doing discussing in an introductory section about when and how it's fard kifaya/`ayn, or when the jihad is stopped, or the repudiation of truces, when we neglect discussion even about it's pre-conditions, how it's started, the basic rules of jihad, as well as other more pertinent information? ITAQALLAH 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As someone whose ancestors' country suffered an Islamic holocaust I can tell you that just who jihadis are supposed to kill is more relevant. Arrow740 05:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

an appeal to emotion is not a valid encyclopedic argument. ITAQALLAH 14:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an appeal to emotion, but a reasonable comment that the bloodiest conquest in human history is not covered in this article well enough. Beit Or 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

that's not the point he is making in this particular discussion. ITAQALLAH 19:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You must have read some other comment then. Beit Or 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem with this statement: "Jihad may also refer to one's striving to attain religious and moral perfection". Innumerable reliable sources make the point that jihad has this interpretation as well. - Merzbow 01:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not an Arabic dictionary. Just like the word "crusade" in English and many other languages, the word "jihad" in Arabic can refer to lots of things. An encyclopedia entry, however, must cover the Islamic concept of jihad rather than the Arabic word "jihad". Beit Or 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

as argued above, jihad as a form of striving to obtain religious perfection is a concept in Islam (as verified by EoI, Esposito, and probably others), and not just an etymological argument. ITAQALLAH 19:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

False, jihad is the effort, which encompasses and is most commonly understood as warfare, aimed at establishing the global domination of Islam. This is what academic sources, including EoI, and works of authoritative Muslim scholars say. Beit Or 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

nobody is denying what jihad is commonly understood as, however: [10]. ITAQALLAH 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

However what? Please do not make self-referential comments. Beit Or 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Although Esposito as usual is overly apologetic on these matters, even Lewis says that some modern Muslims use it in a moral and spiritual sense. Britannica splits the difference, saying that "Modern Islam places special emphasis on waging war with one's inner self. It sanctions war with other nations only as a defensive measure when the faith is in danger." Also: "Islam distinguishes four ways by which the duty of jihad can be fulfilled: by the heart, the tongue, the hand, and the sword. The first consists in a spiritual purification of one's own heart by doing battle with the devil and overcoming his inducements to evil." The sentence is clearly supportable. - Merzbow 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

look, no one is denying that "some modern Muslims" may something. The question, however, is about the views that were and are (if no longer, then show me the evidence) dominant in Islam. In addition, no one is saying that Islam can only be spread by the sword, but please go beyond the quotes. Pick any reasonably scholarly text on jihad, and you will see that it's overwhelimngly about warfare: how it commences, how it's funded and conducted, what are the duties of the fighters and ocmmanders, how to divide booty, how to conclude a truce and how long to keep it, what conditions of surrender to demand from infidels etc. By turning the section into a piece on "jihad-is-not-what-you-thought-but-a-spiritual-struggle-for-self-perfection" ths article invades deeply into Esposito's territory. Beit Or 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

we know what the primary meaning of jihad is, this is why the section dedicates most of the discussion to its application in jurisprudence - and it makes crystal clear that jihad in the books of all jurists refers to combat. to suggest that the addition of one sentence has turned it into "a piece on "jihad-is-not-what-you-thought-but-a-spiritual-struggle-for-self-perfection"" is a distortion. i referred you to my other comments, because they expressed quite nicely what i wanted to say. ITAQALLAH 20:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah is right on the mark here. The modern concept is notable enough for a one-sentence mention. Your beef is not with us but with the editors of Britannica; they found it notable enough for two sentences (in an article only slightly longer than this section). - Merzbow 20:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't see it as worth mentioning, but as it's obvious that consensus to remove it will not be achieved, I'll settle for due weight as a footnote to the main idea, which is where it is now. Annoying, but no big deal. Proabivouac 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The argument that we must imitate Britannica's judgment regarding the due weight issues is self-defeating. As I have pointed out above, the EoI, which is much more scholarly and comprehensive, gives very little attention to this argument, only to dismiss it as apologetics. Beit Or 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Like the "Islam means peace" red herring, which is similarly mentioned in many sources, we all (including our sources) know it's insubstantial and basically irrelevant, yet many want to include it anyway. I guess it makes people feel good. What can you do? Proabivouac 00:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"the EoI, which is much more scholarly and comprehensive, gives very little attention to this argument, only to dismiss it as apologetics." -- i don't see its dismissal. the word jihad is frequently used in Islamic discussion (outside fiqhi discourse) to refer to purification (i.e. jihad an-nafs). ITAQALLAH 01:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere have I seen a reliable source claim that "Islam means peace"; the strongest I've seen it put is that the two words share a root. - Merzbow 02:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to have one sentence on Islamic rulers of India, it's quite insulting to the memory of the millions of murdered Hindus to have it be "The Mughals were noted for their achievements in art and architecture, exemplified by the Taj Mahal, which Shah Jahan built as a memorial to his wife." Arrow740 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

is this the most pertinent tidbit of information concerning the Mughal empire? ITAQALLAH 23:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a working assumption that all pre-modern empires climbed their way to the top over the bodies of hundreds of thousands. This doesn't excuse the Mughals, but neither does it make them notable for doing such. - Merzbow 00:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about forced conversions, and death to those who refused. Arrow740 01:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Christians, Jews, etc. all did the same thing. The Catholic and English Protestant have all done it -- convert or die -- too, I suspect even more recently than the Islamic Rulers of India. I'm not insulted that someone in my lineage was killed because of their beliefs, nor do I care. Thanks, Monkeyblu e 06:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about millions of people here, cultural imperialism at its worst, and I'm not excusing any other such brutal acts. Why is it that many whites on WP often need to say that western culture was bad whenever problems with Islam are brought up? Arrow740 07:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know who is "white", Arrow? The above user appears in fact to be blue. I think the reason that people compare the rise of the Islamic with the rise of the Christian states is that the latter was so very much more brutal. Itsmejudith 08:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a misapprehension we need to correct. Arrow740 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Such was definitely not the case in India, which is what Arrow740 is talking about. I'm not certain how important this is to the article, but you'd have to look to Genghis Khan (or the twentieth century) to find something comparable. Proabivouac 19:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We need to see some references for this in order to judge how and if it should be noted. - Merzbow 23:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

First, we must include the period of Delhi Sultanate, which is arguably atleast as important as the Mughal empire in every respect. Second, since this is supposed to be the history of religion, it would perhaps be better to talk about developments pertinent to religion instead of art and architecture. Some key ideas include Barelwis, Deobandis, Ahmadis, Chishti Order, Din-i-Ilahi, etc. deeptrivia ( talk) 01:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

i believe we did have mention of the Dehli Sultanate and some of the basic chronology of the Mughal empire, but much of it was excised to bring the article to < 85kb ITAQALLAH 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It would perhaps have been a better idea to take out mention of a memorial someone built for his wife instead. Again, as I mentioned, I think more important than mentioning the ~200 years of Mughal rulers (they lingered on for a bit longer in a nominal sense) and ~300 years of Delhi sultans, and what they did and constructed, is to talk about the religious aspect of this 500 year period. Remember, roughly every third Muslim on Earth lives in South Asia, and their concept of Islam is very much shaped by the historical developments in this region in the last 1000 years. deeptrivia ( talk) 02:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

that's a valid point, i'll provide a link to a previous version which had a bit more about the history in India, but do make any additions you feel would would be productive. ITAQALLAH 02:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The most most recent version of the Jihad section has for its fourth paragraph:

"Recently, some Muslim scholars have said that jihad only obligates warfare of a defensive nature. There are also radical Muslims who believe that physical "jihad against unbelief and unbelievers is a religious duty" that justifies terrorism. Some Muslim authorities, especially among the Shi'a, distinguish between the "greater jihad", which pertains to spiritual self-perfection, and the "lesser jihad", defined as warfare. In modern usage, jihad may also refer to one's striving to attain religious and moral perfection."

I find all of this quite ugly. It is a hodgepodge of competing ideas which share the distinction of not being especially important compared to the most central and orthodox concept which has just been laid forth (and quite a bit more clearly and informatively then it was before Beit Or rewrote it and this debate began.) It was written to satisfy a committee and looks it, cruft which settles by its nature to the bottom. I would like to get rid of the whole thing, but imagine this might be met with howls of indignant protest.
For now, which Muslim scholars have said that jihad is only defensive? If we can identify them, we can then weigh how significant they are in the scheme of this main article - remember there is also Jihad, we don't have to cover every permutation here.
The bit about terrorism seems especially irrelevant to this section as it stands - wouldn't the more pertinent questions (and still probably belonging in Jihad) be 1) who has the authority to declare jihad against unbelievers, and 2) can jihad be waged against secular Muslim-majority states to establish Islamic rule? Proabivouac 04:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the first two sentences of this paragraph.

Regarding these two: "Some Muslim authorities, especially among the Shi'a, distinguish between the "greater jihad", which pertains to spiritual self-perfection, and the "lesser jihad", defined as warfare. In modern usage, jihad may also refer to one's striving to attain religious and moral perfection."

These sentences seem very similar. How do their senses differ? Proabivouac 05:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have rearranged and added some material in a rewrite. Mostly I have removed items are really both historic and even within Islam jurisprudential debates. I think these should be more better addressed in the subsequent full pages. Concept was mention the definition of jihad. Both of them. There is very little to say about the greater jihad because in short it is just try to be a better muslim, part of which is to engage in the lesser jihad. Then just feature the ideas of the military nature of jihad in context of its relation to muslims and the religious doctrine, leaving history, politics and other issues for which there is a wide range of concepts even within just the muslim community, both modern and historic leaving the debates to rage on pages where there is space to deal with the issues with justice by getting into details and contrasting opinions. I think the second part could still need some work but I wanted to go ahead and reset the theme so that it doesn't keep threathening to explode into a larger version for "depoving" debates.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigeroo ( talk • contribs)

The change was way too drastic, so I've reverted back to Pro's version. Too much emphasis was given to the "greater/lesser jihad" dichotomy, which does not appear to be a dominant theme in Islamic thought concerning jihad. I think we should proceed in baby steps. - Merzbow 17:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Merzbow.

Also, it's unfortunate that some editors have taken to linking to these BBC pages. [11] (note - sometimes these say "pages not found") They are unattributed and unsigned, do not cite their sources, are poorly-informed and unduly opinionated, and overall are not a credible scholarly source, though the stature of BBC brand as a news agency (itself misplaced where the website is concerned) has misled some to assume otherwise. Proabivouac 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, re this edit, with your addition italicized:

It ceases when Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians submit to the authority of Islam and agree to pay the jizya (a poll tax) and kharaj (a land tax), thereby receiving the status of dhimmis, and when polytheists convert to Islam. In theory, conquered polytheists are given the choice between conversion, slavery, and death. In practice, however, the status of dhimmi was extended to many polytheists as well.

I reckon these are 94 unnecessary bytes: it is already said that jihad will be waged against polytheists until they convert. Am I missing something? Proabivouac 17:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all clear what happens after the Muslims succeed in subduing a polytheist population. This is an integral part of it. Arrow740 01:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

i also suggest we remove the sentence afterwards: " In practice, however, the status of dhimmi was extended to many polytheists as well." - this is stated almost en verbatim in the Other religions section ("However, in practice the status of dhimmi was extended to Zoroastrians, Hindus, and members of other scriptural faiths as well") ITAQALLAH 21:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Hindus and Zoroastrians would argue that their faiths are monotheistic, but some Hindus do have polytheistic ideas of religion. So, yeah, there likely were polytheistic Hindu dhimmis out there. Just one question: What is a "scriptural faith"? — Rickyrab | Talk 03:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Those of us who worked on Islam and slavery know that "slavery is part of jihad." Arrow740 18:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The part about slavery is necessary from the perspective of flow as well. If jihad continues until polytheists convert, i.e. after they have been conquered, it must take some form. The enslavement or killing is that form. Thus the execution or enslavement of prisoners is just as much part of jihad as the military campaigns are, and it has been this way since Muhammad. Arrow740 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

there are many factors related to jihad, the large proportion of which remain unmentioned. slavery is not a fundamental aspect or prerequisite for jihad, and captives first assume the status of prisoner of war. it is then, after the amir decides what should be done with them, that they are enslaved, executed, or whatever else is decided. as such, i think elaboration is quite unnecessary. ITAQALLAH 16:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a fundamental aspect of jihad. The goal of jihad is to control the lives of other people through military action. For polytheists that takes the form of death, slavery, or conversion. Arrow740 09:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

who says it is a "fundamental aspect of jihad"? and were it to be so, we would see it being given far more attention in the academic sources when discussing the fiqh of jihad. the goal of jihad, as related by academic sources, is to expand or defend the Islamic/Muslim state. the jizya has been mentioned as a compromise to its direct relation to the cessation, but the material on civil statuses (dhimma, slavery etc.) is appropriately covered in the later section. ITAQALLAH 17:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

as such, and in the absense of consensus for its inclusion, i have now removed the particular passage. ITAQALLAH 21:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

also... the argument in this summary isn't an encyclopedic reason for inclusion, and is an opinionated appeal to emotion. i have retained the passage for now, but if its inclusion doesn't achieve consensus, then it's best to go without. ITAQALLAH 16:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to historical events. Arrow740 09:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

we don't substitute the presentation of encyclopedia-based arguments with the citation of (a)historical events. ITAQALLAH 17:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In terms of numbers enslaved and killed jihad is the worst invention in human history, I won't let you whitewash it. Arrow740 22:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

i have given you plenty of time to argue for the insertion of this passage, letting it remain in the article while you do so. you have provided very little barring soapboxing via emotional arguments, and have neither resolved to seek nor obtain consensus. please do not reinsert this passage until you are able to do otherwise. ITAQALLAH 22:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You have mischaracterized my postings to this talk page. Instead of directing you to read them again I will summarize for you. First, jihad doesn't stop when polytheists are conquered, and we must indicate how it continues. Second, jihad against polytheists has been the single most destructive doctrine ever devised by mankind. We should at least describe the practice clearly. Arrow740 22:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"jihad doesn't stop when polytheists are conquered" it stops when they convert, the article makes that clear. it's simply unnecessary to go into discussing peripheral issues. again, your second point is irrelevant, emotional soapboxing. please stop misusing the talk page. ITAQALLAH 22:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Murder and slavery might seem like peripheral issues to you, but you should understand that they are part of jihad, and have been since the Medinan period. The second point is not irrelevant, the murder and slavery clauses of jihad have had terrible effects, and we should mention them. Your responses to my posts are increasingly obfuscatory and frustrating, please stop. Arrow740 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

you're repeating your previous points. i already responded here, to which you decided to remain silent. you have only since resumed discussion as a pretext for reinserting irrelevent factoids, without regard for obtaining consensus like the rest of us have done. you may respond above. ITAQALLAH 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset>You never really respond to my points. I never said slavery and execution of captured polytheists was a goal of jihad per se (thought it has been used that way), I said that it is an integral part of jihad. The proscriptions on what to do with captured polytheists are part of the Muslim thought on jihad, and as this has had far reaching and devastating effects. If it will take some facts about the amount of suffering jihad has caused to make you stop claiming that killing and enslavement are irrelevant I will get some. Your claims that I am referring to ahistorical events are part of your irritating style, you know as well as I do that offensive jihad has happened. Arrow740 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

you stated that it was a "fundamental aspect" of jihad, to which i replied: "who says it is a "fundamental aspect of jihad"? and were it to be so, we would see it being given far more attention in the academic sources when discussing the fiqh of jihad." - which you didn't respond to. i've proposed a compromise which i hope will be acceptable. ITAQALLAH 23:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the Muslim plan for dealing with prisoners of war is part of the whole rubric, and the sources mention the fate of polytheists in the jihad discussion. Considering the massive suffering this has caused I am not going to let you hide this from the unaware. I will consider your shoving it down as a compromise for a little while. Arrow740 23:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

please address what i wrote. you can start by supporting your assertion that it's a "fundamental aspect" of jihad with some academic sources. ITAQALLAH 23:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd removed the mention of slavery from the Jihad section because I thought it distracted from the main point of what Jihad is. The fact that those on the wrong side of it might be killed is by this point superfluous - we already know it's a war - and I thought the prose, while accurate, had somewhat of a lurid feel to it. Also, the section was too long, so I removed everything that seemed to me tangential.

You're wikilawyering. We're not talking about combatants, we're talking about killing and enslaving POW's. As dictated by Islamic military jurisprudence. Arrow740 01:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, I'm not wikilawyering, I just told you exactly the reason I removed it.

We're not talking about combatants. Exactly.

And FWIW, Muhammad didn't actually enslave the polytheists, did he? Contrary to what one might assume from the Qur'an, it was the People of the Book who were dealt with harshly, with many enslaved. Polytheists were forced to convert to Islam. Proabivouac 01:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad is not at issue here. The fate of victims of jihad is, and it must be included here. Arrow740 06:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

combatants are the "victims" of jihad. those polytheists who are killed/enslaved are "victims" of the established state. the latter is not part of actual jihad. mention of it was proposed where it is actually relevant. until now, you have not demonstrated that slavery is a fundamental aspect of jihad. ITAQALLAH 17:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That said, the fact that the article now doesn't mention slavery at all strikes me as an ommission. It belongs with the Dhimmi material, I'd think, as a possible and judicially-sanctioned outcome for a non-Muslim falling under Muslim rule - though it also might be appropriate to mention that, like Dhimma, nowadays this is not usually practiced. Proabivouac 00:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction, it does mention that some of the Jews were enslaved, and that the Mamluks were slaves, but it doesn't say anything about jurisprudence. Proabivouac

Ok, i'm confused about the order of the comments here now. Are we still discussing whether or not slavery is integral/fundamental to jihad, or are we moving straight on to whether or not to just include it? MezzoMezzo 02:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see some amount of discussion occuring over this. Nice to see you active again too Arrow, I hope you can also respond to my query on the notable converts to Islam article soon. Anyway, let's all keep in mind the point of this article, and that is to inform the readers. There is no need for things to get testy or personal as we're all ultimately trying to help one another make this a good article.

• First, the issue of slavery being an important part of jihad. We need to make sure that we're all functioning with the same definitions of "integral" and "fundamental" here, and we need to reach a consensus on whether or not slavery is integral/fundamental to jihad.
• Second, let's try to stay away from adjectives or emotional appeals if at all possible. "Devastating effects" and talk about great suffering aren't appropriate ways to discuss topics of war and/or slavery in an encyclopedia. As difficult as it can be with some subjects, we always need to be objective and "clinical", so to speak.
• Third, we should avoid remarks aimed toward one another as this is detrimental to a strong working environment; we are essentially working together on this, after all.

I think once we can reach a consensus on the first point, things will begin to go much smoother. Let's all try our best to be polite and objective and iron out this issue as smoothly as possible. MezzoMezzo 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Looks like I was beat to the punch, lol... MezzoMezzo 23:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrow's version is a very good continuation of what the sentence already beings with, i.e. with Jihad:

It ceases when Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians submit to the authority of Islam and agree to pay the jizya (a poll tax) and kharaj (a land tax), thereby receiving the status of dhimmis, and when polytheists convert to Islam. In theory, conquered polytheists are given the choice between conversion, slavery, and death. In practice, however, the status of dhimmi was extended to many polytheists as well.

All this is an important (controversial) part of Jihad. I dont see any problem with its inclusion, which was the reason for my revert. -- Matt57 ^{( talk• contribs)} 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it isn't solely dependent upon whether or not you feel it's important, as there are a number of editors here who have raised issue with said section. It was inserted without any discussion and thus should be removed until we can reach a consensus on what version to keep; you can't just go and unilaterally make changes that not everyone agrees to. MezzoMezzo 22:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

section break (cessation): reaching a resolution

i'd like to see if we can move forward and establish some basic points:

• The relevant passage is too peripheral and digressive for the introductory section:
  • The section should cover briefly what jihad means, is, and some of its basic rules. The musings about what happened in theory/practice to a specific set of people, after actual combat itself, is an obvious and unnecessary digression.
  • It has been asserted that slavery is a fundamental aspect of jihad (it would need to be for it to be mentioned here), but in the absense of any academic sources explicitly substantiating this, we cannot conclude that this is the case.
  • The assertion itself is highly debatable, enslavement or execution is done at the behest of the Islamic state once it has been established, it is the jihad which establishes the state.
• The insertion, unlike the rest of the material in the section (Proabivouac's rewrite was met with widespread agreement), does not enjoy consensus for inclusion, which it requires to remain in. Please respect consensus, as other editors have managed to do on this article for several months.

i did suggest a compromise between the two stances, and i still think it's an appropriate resolution to this dispute as it mentions the information in the appropriate section. ITAQALLAH 22:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you are claiming that jihad refers only to combat? I don't think so. In 2003 a high-level Saudi jurist, Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa saying "Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam." Shaikh Salih al-Fawzaan "affirmation of slavery" is on page 24 of this: [12] and I can get some quotes from the books I have on slavery too, and post them a bit later. Jihad is not meant only to establish the Islamic state and you know it. I don't know why you would say that. Arrow740 00:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

reliable sources please (you'd generally be referring to such sources as "partisan religious sources", remember?). refer to the article "Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state..." as Proabivouac said, slavery is as related to jihad as is the many other tidbits of information available. we're only here to cover the main, fundamental aspects of it. ITAQALLAH 00:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

you seem to be asserting that just because the issue of slavery is related to the issue of jihad (as are the other 101 unmentioned issues)- which nobody is disputing- then it becomes automatically necessary to discuss it here. see the below comments. ITAQALLAH 00:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all this.

Keep in mind that anyone can come along and find something else about Jihad that they think really really needs to be mentioned. It might be a set of thoughtful rules such as sparing monks and fruit trees, a paean to the spiritual rewards of the "greater jihad," a lurid recount of suffering under various historical jihads, etc. Everybody is very interested in this topic and wants to spin it their way; each of these will inevitably inspire "however/but" responses and section bloat, revert wars or both. What we are doing now is clearly and unaffectedly presenting the most orthodox understanding, which is something most non-Muslims (and perhaps many Muslims) really don't know. They know both directions of POV pushing, because it's all over the media - it is alternately terrorism or self-improvement - but the relatively uncontroversial core definition is completely obscured by these irreconcilable extremes. There is a place to cover all these debates; it is thataway. On this main article, where section length is a pressing concern, we all need to accept that something we really really want to say about jihad won't be here. What we're offering now is pithy information that you can't easily get elsewhere on the web, or in the media. Proabivouac 23:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright I accept that compromise, perhaps Beit Or will as well. We can move on to the "worldwide domination" vs. "dominance" issue. From the perspective of style, flow, and accuracy it should be the former. Arrow740 05:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

i propose we simply use the phrase the EoI article uses (if i recall correctly): "universality" ITAQALLAH 06:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

is that proposal acceptable to you? ITAQALLAH 09:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the exact wording? The goal of jihad is not to cause everyone on earth to convert to Islam per se, the goal is to extend the control of the Islamic state until it has control over the whole earth. Do you agree that that is what the sources say? Arrow740 09:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

more or less, yes. here are some EoI extracts: "The notion stems from the fundamental principle of the universality of Islam: this religion, along with the temporal power which it implies, ought to embrace to whole universe, if necessary by force." and "The duty of the jihād exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained." - how about "universal domination" then? ITAQALLAH 09:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So universal in place of worldwide? That's fine with me. Arrow740 10:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

would i be correct in saying the content dispute issues regarding the section have been ironed out then? ITAQALLAH 16:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Arrow740 23:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

While "universal" vs. "worldwide" is not much of an issue, I can see reverts and disagreements on some other parts of the section. Beit Or 16:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

please read this section thoroughly, [13] [14] [15] the compromise to defer mention to the latter section was reached - and as such full protection was removed. what remaining disagreements do you see? ITAQALLAH 16:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You keep calling your version "a compromise version"; this is not at all that Proabivouac and Arrow740 have agreed precisely to what you're edit warring to restore. Your version suffers from several critical flaws. First, jihad is fought against non-Muslims as a group, not just against "combatants"; there can be no non-Muslim combatants, but still a jihad. Secondly, it is not mentioned anywhere that jihad can also cease when the attacked are killed or enslaved. Beit Or 19:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

you obviously refuse to read through this section properly, you can ask them for yourself whether or not they agreed to the changes i made. this all is, obviously, a pretext for you to bring disruption to this article, as evidenced by your complete disregard of consensus and sweeping changes which you refuse to propose on talk. jihad is fought against combatants (i.e. those who are armed), not against civilians. ITAQALLAH 19:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we do without accusations of bad faith and focus just on the content? Proabivouac 19:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro is right, this was just a personal attack. Beit Or 20:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Re "it is not mentioned anywhere that jihad can also cease when the attacked are killed or enslaved." It also does not mention that jihad can cease if all the Muslims waging it are killed or enslaved. Doesn't this sort of go without saying, or is there some specific point I'm missing here?

I am also interested in the combatants point. Beit Or's version does not spefically say that jihad is fought against civilians, it just doesn't specify "combatants." Is there some third possibility that you are driving at (e.g. against non-Muslims as a collective?) Proabivouac 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If all Muslims are killed, jihad does not cease; it will be resumed at the next opportunity. You're absolutely right on the second point. Beit Or 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What passage from which source being cited makes this clear? If none, then such a cite must be added and the text adjusted if necessary, otherwise we'll be hair-splitting forever. - Merzbow 21:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Firestone makes clear that exegetes stipulated the prohibition on fighting non-combatants (cf. pp. 55, 56, 74) ITAQALLAH 19:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

the same is iterated in "Islamic Ethics of Life: abortion, war and euthanasia" by J.E. Brockropp (2003, Uni. of South Carolina press) pp. 99-100; "War and peace in the law of Islam" (2006) by Majid Khadduri (The Lawbook Exchange), pp. 103-104; "Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam" (2002) by Esposito (Oxford University Press) p. 32; and so on.

We should also mention that according to some researches Allah was the name of the moon God in the pre-Islamic Arabic culture. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm Oren.tal 13:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Please do not hesitate to obtain much reliable information about the Jews from "biblebelievers.org" website, Because it has an interesting article about the JEWS called "THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION" read

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm

. 86.149.105.97 12:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No reliable source says that. - Merzbow 16:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the moon-god concept a myth orginated by some christians as a result of islamophobia? 216.99.52.109 21:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No source for it, no point in discussing further.

Itsmejudith 22:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This link talks about this book: Sheikh Khalil Abdul-Karim, The Historical Roots of Muslim Shari'a Law, Dar Al-Intishar Al-'Arabi, Beirut, 1997.. If you can find this book and find out what exactly it said, you could use the sources. Also see Google books. Here's a book about the Moon God - see if you can use resources from this one (The City of the Moon God: Religious Traditions of Harran By Tamara Marous Green). -- Matt57 ^{( talk• contribs)} 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The cresent, the mosque minarates and domes, the color green they come very different places. Some have placed green and crescents to be the turkic cultural influence from when they conquered the muslim lands, domes and minarets from mediterranean architecural influences etc. Even veils predate Islam to Persian and babylonian times. All synthesized through the filter of Islam into a Muslim (who are much more than Arabs) identity and cultural world. Yet all of these today are veritable badges of cultural identification without being intrinsically religious. A section on "symbols" of Islam though would be an useful addition.-- Tigeroo 10:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt57 I think this is excellent idea.More people that know about this theory should come and write about this.Even if it is only theory it still should be mention. Oren.tal 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

since there is reliable source says that Allah was Moon God in the pre-Islamic Arabic culture I believe that should be mention in the article.

This "theory" is based wholly upon misunderstanding, and is far too marginal for inclusion in this article. Proabivouac 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac it is theory that even make sense because we know that they were pagans.I don't really understand why you are so against it. Oren.tal 22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The theory is today largely coming from the work of Robert Morey, and doesn't seem widely respected by scholars, western or Muslim. In any case, I agree with Proabivouac, Morey is too biased (read:crank-ish) for this article, and I don't see any other strong sources for it (and it isn't really true, but that discussion, and your comment about pagans belongs in an other forum). Best, Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I just noticed that Matt links to a book by Tamara Green, which talks about the relationship between Sabianism (or the Harranian version thereof). Although that relationship has led some to say that Muhammad placed the Sabian form of paganism as in some way as acceptable as Judaism and Christianity (people of the book), and although there are methods of worship used by Muslims that have roots in different traditions, I don't think Green is making the connection you seem to be making. Best, Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 23:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Proav, it doesnt matter if the theory is magical or anything. All that matters is that Reliable Sources have talked about it. Oren tel, we just need to find RS for that. I hope you can find one, but if we cant find one then we'll have to wait until some reliable sources (e.g. famous critics of Islam or historians) talk about it. -- Matt57 ^{( talk• contribs)} 03:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"All that matters is that Reliable Sources have talked about it."

That would only be enough to establish that it might be worthy of inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia, for example on Robert Morey. To include it here would be to assign it grossly undue weight. Proabivouac 03:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldnt be undue weight. It should be okay to mention a few lines about this. That wouldnt be undue weight. See the crescent sign of Islam? Where did that come from? Abdullah (slave of Allah) was a name that was used before Islam came, but I'm not going into debate. Oren Tel, you can find some stuff on the internet ( [16], [17]). Both these links talk about some sources. Proav, also, since Robert Morey claims to have a "Doctor of Philosophy in Islamic Studies", he could be a reliable source for Islam. Oren tel, good luck with finding the reliable sources. Just remember, if you can do so, its possible to mention this here. I found this book too. I think we can borrow stuff from here. -- Matt57 ^{( talk• contribs)} 04:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Which source is being claimed as reliable? Itsmejudith 06:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't really know anything about the author of the last book you mentioned, Yoal Natan. Looking him up, he seems to be primarily a blogger/ self-published author. The book you cited was self-published, but you can go ahead and read the entirety of Volume II on google books, I think. I don't think he passes as a reliable source as he is mostly self-published (and his theory, not to mention his writing, is ridiculous). As for Morey, even his sources (Coon, archaeologists on the Hazor dig) disagree with him. Best, Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 06:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that the name Abdallah means something different for modern Muslims than it did for Muhammad's father. The Satanic verses incident might lend credence to the idea that Muhammad was trying to conflate Yahweh with the moon god. Does anyone have a reliable source on this? Arrow740 06:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like that's exactly what happened. I'd forgotten that Muhammad claimed that the Arabs were previously monotheists who worshiped Yahweh. Arrow740 06:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in EoI, EoQ or other academic sources I have seen about such a theory.-- Aminz 08:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never even heard of that theory before reading it right here. MezzoMezzo 10:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing about most religions is that adherents are required to believe new things they learn. I believe it says in the Qur'an that the Kaaba was originally a shine to Abraham's god, i.e. Allah, and that Abraham originally preached to the Arabs to only worship Allah. Arrow740 19:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following you; how does that relate to the moon god thing? (Are we still discussing that topic?) MezzoMezzo 20:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo this is about the pre-Islamic period.of course you have not heard about it.How much do you know about those pagan religions that were before Islam?The pagan Arabs worship many Gods while one of those God was Allah.We know that paganic usually tend to create connection between the God they believe and ideas,like God of war etc.Those the paganic Arabs usually have created some connection between Allah and some idea.According to last evidence the paganic Arabs believed that Allah is the moon God.Even if it is only theory we must mention it.The fact you heard about it or hadn't don't really matter about it.Anyway I don't claim that Muslims today worship God Moon but only speak about pre-Islamic period. 132.72.149.74 18:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, 1. one of the misconceptions among many is the cresecent sign. It was NOT originally an Islamic symbol, nor is it today. It was actually introduced much later by the Ottomans, along with the star and the colour green idea. 2. The name Abullah is a very common name among the original Jews of Cairo (who spoke Arabic), which is why the name existed well before Islam. The etymology behind it is exactly the same though. So these two points would definitely be irrelevant to the whole moon god idea. So in my opinion we really don't have enough sources to put this topic in the article. ko268 6:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Anther article about moon God: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/skm30804.htm 132.72.149.74 18:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC) http://users.hubwest.com/prophet/islam/moongod.htm 132.72.149.74 18:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC) http://www.netbiblestudy.net/bulletin/new_page_126.htm 132.72.149.74 18:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Man, those sites are jokes, as is your assertion. "Allah" is the Arabic word for "god"; that is why Arab Christians refer to god as Allah as well. The notion that Allah is some sort of pagan moon god is refuted by linguistics. As for your links, the first one is widely agreed not to be reliable, the second is someone's personal (and factually and historically inaccurate) opinion, and the third is a Christian fundie site. That's laughable. I mean literally, I thought Christian fundamentalists gave up the whole "Allah is a moon god" thing a long time ago when people realize that Christians use the word "Allah" too. It just means god, so please check your sources. MezzoMezzo 20:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is no question that Allah (as in Abd-allah) was a moon god. It may have been the word used by Jews and Christians at the time as well for Yahweh as well. Arrow740 23:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So what if a moon god was called Allah (I am not saying it was). How is this relevant to ISLAM, which is what the article is about? The term Allah, simply is GOD in Arabic. ko268 6:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Man I glad you understand we don't speak about Islam today.Anyway it is about the backround of Islam.No one say Muslims today worship moon God.Only that Allah was moon God. 132.72.149.74 06:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

ko268 brings up a good point. Allah is the Arabic word for god, it's a simple linguistic fact. Arab Jews and Christians do and always have used it (in addition to other names as well). If a group of pagans years ago decided to use that word to refer to an idol then it is an interesting historical factoid, but not relevant to this article. Maybe to the article on Allah in regard to the history of the words usage. MezzoMezzo 06:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see evidence that Arab Christians and Jews used the word before Muhammad. Arrow740 06:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Any Arab Christian could tell you that, but if you mean historical evidence I can try to see what I can dig up. An Arabic bible shouldn't be hard to find, or I can look elsewhere if you'd prefer. MezzoMezzo 06:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Allah and Allat were married. Muhammad claimed that Allah was also the god of Abraham and the monotheistic worship of that god had been corrupted over time, to the point that the pagans had him all wrong. So my original theory was correct. Arrow740 07:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Which brings you back to Muslim concept of God and the eternally pre-existent religion. It doesn't stop at Abraham but goes back to Adam. The Muslim position is quite simple, there is singular all-powerful deity who has been known to humans since the beginning but over time corrupted the pristine conception gets blurred by ascribing son's, daughters, wives intermediaries or others who appear to "share" parts of his primordial power and so prophets are sent forth to guide men back to him rather than "false man-made deities". Call him Allah, Khuda, Rub it's all the same as long as you have the monotheistic concept. As far as Islam goes [ is singular and all powerful.] Any other conception is an error. It's not a borrowing of an old top god, wether the god was married or had kids it's all irrelevant. It was a redefinition of the entire concept of a prevalent god-term (Allah, Ilahi etc.) that is the really significant aspect of what Islam did. It never claimed to have create a new god or unearthed a long lost god and it definitely did not have anything to do with the moon!! -- Tigeroo 10:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole topic seems to be going off topic. Can we all at least agree that the origin of the word Allah is irrelevant to the Islam article and fringe theories for which only one reliable source exists similar have no place in this article? If so, then we should move on since this doesn't appear to have anything to do with the article anymore Nil Einne 12:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You make an interesting point. Allah already does have its own article. MezzoMezzo 14:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Make that zero reliable sources, I think. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 15:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This has completely gone off-topic, and has no relevance to Islam. I think topic in general belongs in the etymology section of the "Allah" article in wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah). ko268 9:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are my concerns:

1. Article says: "Jihad literally means "struggle" and some Muslim authorities call it the sixth pillar of Islam." While the source says:"Jihad, "to strive or strugle" in the way of God, is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, although it has no such official status." What the article says is not supported by this sentence. Esposito clearly says "it has no such official status" so it should be said "few Muslim authorities". The best solution is to say that "it is sometimes called the sixth pillar but doesn't have such official status in Islam."
2. The section quickly jumps into within the Islamic jurisprudence while it should first give the meaning of the term in its general context. Esposito continues: "In its most general meaning, it refers to the obligation encumbent on all Muslims, as individuals and as a community, to lead virtous lives, and to extend the Islamic community through preaching, education, and so on."
3. Article says: "In modern usage, jihad may also refer to one's striving to attain religious and moral perfection". This is nonsense. There are qur'anic verses that use the term "jihad" completely in spritual sense particularly those belonging to the Meccan period.
4. The article should clearly contain the POV that according to some jihad is only defensive. -- Aminz 04:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's fix these for now. -- Aminz 03:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Esposito must be used with great caution, as you know. Arrow740 04:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What is "the way of God?" This appears to be a direct translation from Arabic that does not quite make sense in English. Also the "unofficial" bit isn't very clearly written as of now. Arrow740 04:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the unofficial sixth pillar is extraneous especially if we are saying it is a minority view.-- Tigeroo 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems confusing to just say it means "strive or struggle", because one must strive toward something and struggle for a reason. I think that bit is informative, and the rest of the section makes clear what striving or struggling in "the way of God" entails. "Unofficial" is not entirely accurate since there really is no "official" Islam, but I can't think of a better word. - Merzbow

I came up with an alternative wording that doesn't use "unofficial". Feel free to change. - Merzbow 04:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is bad style to force the reader to decipher a phrase of ours by reading the full paragraph. Also the "unofficial" bit is extraneous as you have indicated. Arrow740 04:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Could an Arabic speaker answer the question as to whether or not "jihad" has an expressly religious connotation in Arabic? Arrow740 04:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Because if not, we're being inaccurate. Arrow740 04:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Harb" is the term for war . "Jihad" refers to dedicated effort to a cause, from the root of "Jahd". "Bughat" is for rebels or insurgents fighting for a cause. Jihad is the shortened version of "Jihad fi sabillilah" Or struggle in the way of god.-- Tigeroo 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Jihad is the shortened version of "Jihad fi sabillilah" Or struggle in the way of god."

How on earth might one discern that Jihad is "short for" Jihad fi sabillilah? One might just as easily claim that all instances of "Alexander" in this article are "short for" Alexander the Great. Proabivouac 21:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I can easily numerous sources for this its not difficult. "Jihad seldom occurs by itself in the Quran; the full phrase is normally jihad fi sabi Allah which can be precisely translated as "striving in the path laid down by God" that is struggling to assure that God's purposes for mankind are achieved even in the face of obdurate opposition." -(Between Memory and Desire: The Middle East in a Troubled Age By R. Stephen Humphreys pg. 175) I hope that makes it unamabigious and clear.-- Tigeroo 13:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your first point seems reasonable, I've changed it. Regarding the others, Esposito is an outlier on this topic. Other sources (Lewis, Britannica, and EoI I'm told) place far more emphasis on jihad's military meaning; they state the defensive meaning is almost purely modern, and that the spiritual meaning, while pre-modern also, is subservient to the military meaning. If you read the above discussions, you'll see that some editors don't even want to mention these meanings at all, but I think they should be mentioned. But they shouldn't be given undue weight either. - Merzbow 04:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It was subservient to the military meaning in "judical" writings; in Islamic jurisprudence- not in Islam- not in say "Sufism": For Sufis, the case is completely reverse. Physical jihad is subservient to the spritual meaning.

Jurists were concerned with specific "laws". Law is concerned with outward actions in the first place (not spritual journey) so it is natural that they mentioned the details of armed warfare in detail. -- Aminz 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose adding a sentence on what the Sufis think of jihad if a source can be found and their conception is indeed different. - Merzbow 04:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz would also have to make a case for relevance. The coverage in the main references for this article of the Sufi view is probably a good argument not to include this tidbit. Arrow740 04:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not just a tidbit, but a significant aspect of how jihad is conceived. Since jihad is such an important concept, this encyclopedic article must get it right. Itsmejudith 22:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

From the perspective of the sources presented here, this is wishful thinking. Arrow740 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not mentiong the sufi concept of "greater jihad" is just oversight. Wether it is modern or not is also debatable but a highly prevalent conception of Jihad in the Muslim world. The physical struggle, i.e. military context is the external aspect or subset of the same. No mention of jihad is complete without the spirtual section as much as without the military one. Asking someone to be a better muslim is not something jurists can legislate it is a subject more apt for sermons, exhortations and philosophical treatise. Nor is it something you can write too much in this section either. Sources are easy enough to find about jihad transcending military action since its quite a prevalent concept. For example Between Memory and Desire: The Middle East in a Troubled Age By R. Stephen Humphreys pg 175, he talks of Medinan references to "people who stuggle with their bodies and their goods beside the prophet" in reference to the struggle to create the Muslim community where jihad refers to struggle in the way of god, as working towards creating a Muslim community. Warfare was again only one aspect of it. War and the Law of Nations: A General History By Stephen Clark Neff pg. 43 speaks of Abd Ar-Rahman Al-Awza and his treatise in the 8th century on jihad identifying four types of jihad (also quite commonly found in Jihad litreature anywhere). Both authors expressly say that Jihad was not expressily a militarily connotated conception and there was the source I had put up earlier as well that showed that the term arose from the time of the struggle to establish the Muslim community in the face of opposition from the Quraish of Mecca. The military aspect again came after and is just part of a bigger concept. The whole Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam and Dar-al-Sulh concepts of perpetual war again are again an evolution of the military conception of striving to establish "god's law by vigirous action" to establish a community where one can live a muslim lifestyle.-- Tigeroo 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"The whole Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam and Dar-al-Sulh concepts of perpetual war again are again an evolution of the military conception of striving to establish "god's law by vigirous action" to establish a community where one can live a muslim lifestyle."

After all that about the "greater jihad," we return to the pith: Jihad is mandatory because the law it propagates is righteous by God and beneficial to humanity. Does the article fall short of making this clear? Proabivouac 08:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Jihad is the struggling to be a good Muslim. Military struggles are indeed one aspect, a sub-set. I am not sure how you get that the concept of the "greater jihad" somehow negates the military one. The current version only zoom's in and selectively focuses on the military aspect and even then further zooms in on the "by the sword" portion, which is the problem. The military concept was debated and went through numerous evolutions with varied opinions in Islamic jurisprudence including the version where it was beleived that it was impossible to live an ideal Muslim lifestyle under a non-Muslim ruler, which factored both into certain concepts of Jihad as well as later calls from some sectios for Muslims to migrate out of Andulasia when it was overrun.-- Tigeroo 05:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Jihad is the struggling to be a good Muslim." The available sources do not support this idea. The weights assigned in the article to the aspects of jihad broadly reflect the relative importance of these aspects in Islam itself with maybe some overemphasis on the spiritual matters. When Muslim scholars say or write "jihad", they usually mean a war against infidels, not an inner struggle towards self-perfection. Beit Or 20:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really it was a conception quite similar to Manifest Destiny and other Natural law concepts. It presumed conflict between good and evil. It stemmed from the extension of the notion of al-amr bil maruf wal nahy al an-munkar (commanding the good and forbidding the evil) onto jihad. The primary goal is to build a "godly society" with one self, internally and externally, sword, pen, tongue whatever. At different times of history different aspects came to the foreground. There is no denial of the military aspect, but it is a subset of the bigger picture. The jurists legislations may be about war, but their reasonings are based on their interpretations of the same theme a perception of evil and that the writ of god is Universal and true and that the Muslim world would be one and that border wars were natural and inevitable. Jihad's were always declared with a casus belli which was not "convert or die." As far sources go, over my posts so far I have already referenced more than a few (see above for an 8th century reference to a non-military conception of jihad). One reason why the caliph was important was because he could declare the jihad but once he started losing power even the emphasis of dominant interpretations changed. By the twelfth century itself Ibn Taymiyyah was reemphasising the jihad of the tongue and heart and the concept that jihad could only be defensive. The concept of a third dar-al Sulh gained greater prominence with which the non-Shafii schools of thought accepted. Even the "modernist" intepretation with its emphasis on inner jihad is more than a few centuries old.-- Tigeroo 13:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That jihad can be only defensive is at least a western academic POV if not that of most pre-modern Muslim jurists. Esposito and John Bowker (The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions:"If it involves conflict, it is strictly regulated, and can only be defensive.") say that. -- Aminz 06:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The jurist Ibn Taymiyyah is recoreded to have taken the position that Jihad can only be defensive even in the 13th century.-- Tigeroo 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The article states in a few places that Muslims are split roughly 85% Sunni and 15% Shia, as does the article on Shia Population. However, this article provides no reference for that and the Shia Population article provides a color shaded map as its reference. I do know that here you can find a citation stating that Shia are just over 7%. In addition, the Encyclopedia Brittanica 2006 edition states that Shia are "less than 10%". I think that more research should be done with verifiable sources to help update the article. There will most likely be a few different estimates, which should all be stated as examples of the differing numerical counts. MezzoMezzo 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Deserves looking into (don't have much time myself as I'm on vacation for the next few days). - Merzbow 05:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention the large number of Muslims living in the US. Everywhere but the US is mentioned. I got the number as being between 5 and 7 million line in the US from http://www.islam101.com/history/population2_usa.html. Can we include that figure in the article as well? Dtxn 18:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Dani

"This article will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on 2007-06-23."

Cool. Everyone make special plans to stay available on this day, if you can, to keep an eye on this article. Be careful not to accidentally violate 3RR; only vandalism reverts don't count toward 3RR. - Merzbow 05:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that possible to make it fully protected few days before it apprears on main page? --- A. L. M. 13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection gives arguments for and against semi-protection. Given the article normally is quite contentious, I think it would be beneficial to RPP it. Is there a consensus for logging it at RPP? → AA ^{( talk • contribs)} — 13:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Full protection is of course impossible for a main-page FA, but semi is logical here. I would consider it very poor form if an admin removed the semi-protection the article has been under for many months. - Merzbow 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's just wait until consistent vandalism gets in. Anonymous users have the right to edit too.-- BMF81 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I usually have a tendency to remove semi-protection on articles that have been protected for as long as this one has been - about 4 months. But given the obvious that this article is always a target, its sort of an implicit understanding that this article will remain protect for extended periods of time (like George W. Bush, which has been protected since March 1). BMF81 makes a valid point, in which, the main page featured article is the most viewed page per day, and thus, attracts many new potential editors to Wikipedia. And its quite irritating to see, "Wikipedia, he free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.", and then click the article, to see that only those people who have been here for a certain amount of time can edit. So while I won't unprotect myself, understand why someone else may unprotect it. Pepsidrinka 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I had suggested that would be better to be on the main page in a especial day like Eid ul-Fitr. Can you please change the date. I mean 13 October 2007 is a better choice. If another article has been chosen for that day, we can ask Raul to substitute.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 04:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

that is a good thinking. :) It will be good to be display on Eid day.-- A. L. M. 07:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it will give the impression that the English wikipedia is celebrating Eid. Arrow740 07:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

While I don't really mind whether it's put up now or later in the year, I don't think it should be rejected because wikipedia will be seen to be "celebrating Eid." Featured articles are often placed on the main page on significant dates to create interest, eg a cricketer on the day of the cricket world cup final. It is no statement of support or celebration. Recurring dreams 07:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cricket is not controversial. WP cannot be seen to be in support of Islam in any way. Arrow740 07:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And how is the proposal controversial? Or how will wikipedia be seen to "support" Islam? Recurring dreams 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be some kind of official recognition. Arrow740 07:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, how? "Official recognition" that it exists and a certain group of people celebrate it? How is that "support"? Recurring dreams 07:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

By making our choices based on the Islamic calendar. Arrow740 07:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And all other choices are made based on the Gregorian calendar. Is wikipedia covertly supporting Catholicism and Pope Gregory XIII? Recurring dreams 07:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, due to western imperialism the Gregorian calendar is now secular as well as religious. The Islamic calender is not. Arrow740 07:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, using the calender endorses a secular, non-Islamic and non-whoever doesn't use the Gregorian calender point of view. My point is there's nothing inherently biased in choosing a particular date from a calender. Is it saying the calender is more appropriate and should be implemented? Not really. Recurring dreams 08:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is going up on its scheduled date because I don't change the scheduled queue lightly. If you guys want to work on another Islam-related article and get it up to FA status, I have no problem featuring that on a Muslim holiday. It's not "supporting" Islam any more than featuring Christmas on December 25 is. Raul654 15:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose that as well. Arrow740 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or let me know that this article is currently the subject of an edit war and is protected. For this reason, I've decided to postpone its appearance on the main page for a while. Raul654 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a wise decision. Beit Or 20:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Note - if the dispute is resolved before the article was to have gone up, someone please let me know and I'll do some reshuffling in the queue. Raul654 20:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Muhammad was never formally a ruler unlike later caliphs. He was more of a leader of an alliance. We can remove either reference if they are contented as the concept is provided at anyrate without specifiying.
2. Hasan al-Basri was a prominent and influential Sufi. Some even debate he was Sufi there were many other ascetics among the Sahaba and non-sahaba. Another famous one is Oveis Qarni. It was a movement without a singular leader as the sense comes forth in the current wording.
3. Muawiya was not "a prominent military leader" but an influential tribal leader who rebelled. He was the Governor of Bilad al-Sham who fought Ali at the Battle of Siffin, and in a sense the actual territory of the caliphate under rule was split under Ali and Muawiya and upon Ali's death Muawiya assumed the mantle for the whole after settling with Hasan ibn Ali.
4. Golden Age, sections say expansion was on via warfare and dawah. Expansion of what, this not at all clear?? The Abbasid Empire was in consolidation mode, territorial expansion was miniscule and generally occured under the breakaway states. It is more apt descriptor to the Umayyad period. So under the Abbassids it becomes expansion of the Muslim world in general at this stage. Expansion of Islam the religion by military warfare or even peaceful prosletyzation are very simplistic explanations for the spread of the religion and if we can't have the debate within this section it might be better to leave off the detail or debates on the mechanics to the more specific pages. It would both suffice and be more specific to say that the Islamic world (note: not the Abassid Caliphate) continued to expand by conquest during this period and Islam spread both within and beyond the boundaries of the Muslim world as the monolithic....
5. Islamic conquest of southern France is again misplaced in historic chronology, it dates to Umayyad period not the Abbassid or the Golden age period.
6. Muslim gains in the Medditerannean pre-Crusade is again wrong. The Byzantine dominance was rexerted in the last two centuries of the millenium. Italian maritime states were rexerting their power and raiding the North African Coast. Normans had captured Sicily. Infact the opposite was true. It the loss of Anatolia to the Turks and land based reversals of the last century of gains that triggerred the plea for the crusades. Wether it was or was not the reason, is another debate also and could be summed up as the quest for rule over the holy land. It might be simpler to state following the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia the Muslim world got enaged in conflict with the Christian world in a series of wars called the Crusades. Some definitions of Crusades even include the Ottoman wars so we might want to remove Saladin as having reversed it because we don't really want to deal with all the details here.
7. Ottoman and Mughals, although islam continued to expand in spain.. strange line that needs to be better integrated.
8. The Mughals, Ottomans and the Taj Mahal, we have drifted away from the topic Islam and into Islamic history which in noway is there adequate space to cover. Skipped entirely the whole Mongol period and ignorned African developments as well as Central Asia. We need to restore focus on Islamic development when looking at the history. Generally as a rule I think after the Golden Age we need to get out of political history it is too fractured and too much going on all over the place and give links to Muslim history and Muslim World as the main pages.-- Tigeroo 21:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo, you might be interested in taking a look at a previous version of the history section, which was more detailed. perhaps you can use the text or references used therein to help suggest tweaks with the current version? the history section is by no means perfect, but you can appreciate the difficulty of covering such a large topic as briefly as has been done. ITAQALLAH 22:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The notion of Muhammad as merely the "leader of an alliance" strikes me as dubious…weren't these "allies" paying taxes to Medina, and the Ridda wars broke out when some stopped doing so?

As for Muawiyya, let's not forget that he was Uthman's nephew. Proabivouac 23:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said rather than get into semantics leave it at they were united under him unless you want to add "as prophet". There is a only semantic differentiation between rule and leadership at anyrate. Muhammad was the "Nabi" or prophet and while it is not ruler or even leader it carries even stronger/different authority than that of king like head of state.

Ridda war's were about quite a bit more than just Zakat.

Yes, Muawiya was Bani Umayya like Uthman. A sub-set of the Koriesh like the Bani Hashim. Don't get trapped into equating the modern concepts of nephew, uncle.-- Tigeroo 00:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo, he who makes the decisions and to whom taxes are paid is the ruler. My understanding was that at least some of the rebels were claiming that they were still Muslims, but wouldn't pay Zakat to Abu Bakr.

Having read what you wrote, I still don't understand what the problem is with "ruler." What is your objection to "under his rule?" Proabivouac 00:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Zakat is and is not a tax. The Bedouins who withheld themselves had various differing reasons including a conception that the provision lapsed after Muhammad. Muhammad was the source they trusted to distribute it across tribal boundaries. He was much a more leader than a ruler, because he united them under his moral authority. Ruler implies an officially sanctioned institutional role, whereas leader better represents the nature of his role.-- Tigeroo 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, ruler is more specific. Arrow740 05:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, leader is more accurate, but Nabi (a.k.a Prophet) is the most exact rendition of his role. I hope you can see the pointless argumentativeness of such positions, which is why I offered a compromise to remove either. Especially when ruler is not a commonly used term to describe his role.-- Tigeroo 13:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Any other objections to the other items raised beyond Arrow740's? If not I will redo the what appear to uncontested proposal.-- Tigeroo 13:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I made some of the simpler changes myself. A few more objections, though. For 2, Lapidus mentions only al-Basri. If you want to add to this you have to add another source. For 6, the cited source, Lapidus, directly says one of the Pope's expressed reasons for the Crusades was "Muslim gains in the Mediterranean". As for 8, I still think it's important to touch on the important political and military developments in the Islamic world, since Islam the religion spread, fell, or changed greatly as a result of them. - Merzbow 06:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at what Lapidus has to say because it would have been VERY strange indeed if he did say Hasan was the leader of the movement. He does not infact say that Hasan al-Basri was the leader of a movement that resulted in Sufism he merely says he "..has come down history as an exemplar of ascetic engagement.." which is correct because of his undoubtable influence in shaping thoughts. As for the Crusades, please take a look at the Crusades discussion archives or even the page. There is no shortage of citable work that could indeed ascribe MANY different motives for the launch of the Crusades. I suggest we simply formulate the sentences so as not to get into THAT hornet nest.-- Tigeroo 15:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic background(Jaheliat)

The section starts with the dawn of Islam by Muhammad. I suggest we summerize the pre-Islamic history and the background in a sentence or two. Any feedback? -- Aminz 06:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. All depends on the details. - Merzbow 06:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we can for example summerize the following quote(s): "In the case of the nomadic Arabs, shut up in their wilderness of rock and sand, Nature herself barred the way of progress. The life of desert does not furnish permanent advance beyond the tribal system, and we find that the religious development of the Arabs was proportionally retarded, so that at the advent of Islam the ancient heathenism, like the ancient tribal structure of society, had become effete without having ever ceased to be barbarous... The northern Semites, on the other hand, whose progress up to the eight century before Christ certainly did not lag behind of the Greeks, were deprived of political independence, and so cut short in their natural development..." (Source: The religion of Semites,p.34) -- Aminz 06:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 03:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds more than a little bit prosaic.-- Tigeroo 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's remarkably speculative and palpably biased. Proabivouac 05:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, we should give full background of the history of pre-Islamic Aarabs.Many people want to know about this. 87.69.77.76 20:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The key text for this would be Albert Hourani's A History of the Arab Peoples, pp.10-11. He describes the way of life of the nomads and settled cultivators, explains that people were organized in tribes that were based in oases. "Local gods, identified with objects in the sky, were thought to be embodied in stones, trees and other natural things; good and evil spirits were believed to roam the world in the shape of animals; soothsayers claimed to speak with the tongue of some supernatural wisdom.... It has been suggested ... that gods were thought of as dwelling in a sanctuary, a haram, a place or town set apart from tribal conflict, serving as a centre of pilgrimage, sacrifice, meeting and arbitration, and watched over by a family under the protection of a neighbouring tribe." He says that Arab nomads had moved across Syria and Iraq and were open to ideas and beliefs from the Byzantine empire, so that there were Christians at Hira, Jewish craftsmen, merchants and cultivators in the oases of Hijaz and Christian monks and converts in central Arabia.

But I think hardly any of this can be included or the article would be unbalanced. Itsmejudith 20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a line or two can be placed, merely to reference the state of affairs. Generally it is available in greater detail in other pages.-- Tigeroo 13:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual development By the late 8th century

I had added By the late 8th century the first collections of Hadith,speaches of Muhammad, were gathered, the first historic books of Muslims were written, the first Madrasas had emerged and different school of theologic thoughts and juriceprodential sects were formd. Then the movement for translation of the books of other culturs began and in the 9th century Abbasid dynasty established House of Wisdom which was the biggest library and translation institute in the Muslim civilization. and Merbow removed it and said sorry to remove this, but it's too much, unsourced, and inaccurate in places

You can shorten it if it's too much. You can add source because I don't have any English book about this issue. I propose using History of Islamic Philosophy by Henry Corbin. Inaccurate in places!!! No the place is completely correct.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 02:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The hadith weren't his speeches, they were recorded anecdotes about Muhammad and his close companions that often included his words. I think the history section already sufficiently covers theological disagreements and legal developments better in other places. I don't think the establishment of a library is important enough to mention here. - Merzbow 02:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but you may misunderstood. So I clarify the issue. In the first century of Islamic history Muslims had been forbidden to write the prophet's Hadith. Since 99 AH they allowed to do so. They began gathering his Hadiths and in the second century numerous collections of these Hadiths were gathered. About 400 collections have been collected by Shia's. At the same time the first historians like Ibn Ishaq and Abu Mekhnaf collected the history of Islam. Ja'far al-Sadiq established a school in Madina which includes at least 4000 students. Hasan Basri made a school in Basra. The first schools of theological thoughts and jurisprudential sects were formed. House of Wisdom was not just a library like what you're familiar with. It has collected the cultural and intellectual legacy of other civilizations comprising Roman, Greece, Persian, Indian, Egyptian, etc. Unfortunately the story has been written from the middle in this article. There's written The Golden Age saw new legal, philosophical, and religious developments. Islamic law was advanced greatly by the efforts of the early 9th century jurist al-Shafi'i; he codified a method to establish the reliability of hadith, a topic which had been a locus of dispute among Islamic scholars. Philosophers Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Al-Farabi sought to incorporate Greek principles into Islamic theology, while others like the 11th century theologian Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali argued against them.[71] Finally, Sufism and Shi'ism both underwent major changes in the 9th century. Sufism became a full-fledged movement that had moved towards mysticism and away from its ascetic roots, while Shi'ism split due to disagreements over the succession of Imams while it was not the beginning of the cultural and intellectual development. -- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 15:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

They were not forbidden to write it. Even Ibn Hishams text is reported to be based on earlier versions. They were just never collated in one place because of the difficulty and oral nature of the initial/cultural traditions. Everything was quite in the present in a small muslim community, issues when arose when mass migrations, deaths and new converts & generations came around and you couldn't quite pop around the corner to ask anymore.-- Tigeroo 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right however that the "Golden Age" was important, not only for the philosopical impact in general but especially for its influence on the development of Islamic theology, which definitely requires a mention. I'll see what I can do about making a concise accurately section on it since in principle it remains unopposed.-- Tigeroo 13:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Some topics should be covered

Great article. Just some remarks: The article, especially the "History" section does not give enough coverage of Islamic literature, science, medicine... and gives the impression that Islamic history is just about wars. For example, nothing in the article explains why the "Golden age" is named like that. Since it's a general article about Islam, Islam's contribution to science and arts is notable enough to be mentioned. CG 18:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

we did have another section concerning civilisation (cf. [18]), which discussed art/architecture, science/technology, and literature; but it was decided that it needed a substantial trim (actually, looking over the article, i don't know where it has gone now!). ITAQALLAH 19:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Many Muslims have advanced the sciences, but I'm not aware of Islam having done so. Can you give an example?

The relevance of the military expeditions isn't that Muslims are doing them, but that this is the greater part of how Islam the religion was propagated (and in a few cases depropagated.) Similarly, if an advance in paper production facilitated the dissemination of the Qur'an, this would be relevant just as earlier mentions of paper were not. Proabivouac 20:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually its a bit of both. Militarily it was the boundaries that were advanced. It was the cultural synthesis of the regions within the borders with Islam that followed that brought about the majority of the conversions. The religion definitely did influence the way the development of the art and philosophies and the entire civilization that arose in the age. You also right however that it should be minimal and ofcouse we can link out to pages that better deal with it.-- Tigeroo 13:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that we are trying to shift the history section from political to religious history, but I think we still should bear in mind the need to have a brief outline of how the area constituting the Islamic world changed over the centuries. So I think we do have to mention the Reconquista, the central Asian empire, the Mughals (but also their eclipse). The present heading mentioning "Mughals until 1918" could lead to some seriously erroneous high school papers being produced. Itsmejudith 06:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed sentence "From the 11th Century onwards a series wars known as the Crusades brought the Muslim world into conflict with Christendom." Even the Saladin reference is incorrect. It was Zengi, Saladins grand-father who defeated the Second Crusade, Saladin was in the Third Crusade and his claim to fame lay in achieving the reversal of Crusader gains by recapturing Jerusalem. I suspect the current version is not a cohesive summary section but a remnant of various prior redactions just because it is so strange. My proposals is so high-level and overarching on very simple information that I know it wouldn't even affect the summation of the sources that appear to be cited by the current version. If we want to mention Saladin, the second line needs to be changed to read "Successful at first in capturing the Holy land and establishing the Crusader states, Crusader gains in the Holy Land were later reversed by later Muslim generals such Saladin, who recaptured Jerusalem during the Second Crusade." P.S: It was not till the 9th Crusade that the last of the Crusader States was recaptured by Muslim kingdoms. I think a two sentence summary that provides the links, the mention of Jerusalem, Holy Land, Christendom and the Crusader States is an adequate summation for the purposes of this article that manages to skip the numerous possible clashes over details.-- Tigeroo 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I know there is a specific page on Islamic Terrorism but there is surprisingly very little mentioned on this page, and I consider it a major component of Islam past and present. I think a specific section regarding terrorism, forced conversions, honor killings, etc. ought to be included. Talmage 00:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think so too. The muslims diaagree.-- Sefringle ^Talk 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not covered sufficiently. In the hadith it is a different matter. Search in this page for "terror." Arrow740 01:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"I consider it a major component of Islam past and present" - you do, academics don't. ITAQALLAH 01:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a single one of them considers Islamic terrorism important at all in today's world? I find that rather difficult to believe.... Homestarmy 01:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

that's not quite what Talmage asserted. ITAQALLAH 01:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, can we be specific here? Jihad does not necessarily equal terrorism, while forced conversions and honor killings have nothing to do with terrorism at all. Proabivouac 01:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Using terrorism against civilians is an innovation and Muslims didn't use this tool. -- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 03:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Muhammad terrorized his opponents in Medina by assassinating many of them. He then killed all the males of the Banu Qurayza with pubic hair and enslaved the women and girls. Don't you think that counts as terrorism? Arrow740 03:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre-modern warfare was a bitch. Even modern warfare has been quite a bitch. Rules for acceptable treatment of prisoner's of war were vastly different. Plus terrorism is an inherently POV conception. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter or oppressor. It's a case of mutual accusation by antagonistic parties.-- Tigeroo 05:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there is disagreement about the meaning of terrorism. What you've mentioned were military campaigns( Ghazw). -- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 04:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We can argue about whether terroirsm is a part of Islam all day, or we can enter serious discussion. To those who propose putting something like that in this article, please bring forth reliable sources that clearly establish the notability of this in the Islamic faith. Bless sins 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There should atleast be a section on Islamist terrorism. Talmage, feel free to create a small summary section with a "main" link to Islamist terrorism. This will be a welcome addition to the article. -- Matt57 ^{( talk• contribs)} 01:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Because this issue is extremely controversial please write your proposal here and after building consensus add it to the article. -- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to you to give people permission to make additions to the article, Matt57. You need to seek a consensus first like everyone else. MezzoMezzo 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

absolutely. ITAQALLAH 12:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, we will also be adding a section to the main Christianity page of a similar type, since there have and continue to be Christian terrorists in many parts of the world. Buyo 13:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Islam means both Peace and Submission. This is debated all over depending on your political views but the overall belief is that it means both, I believe, tell me if I am wrong. I put in that it means both in the article but it is removed why? I think this needs to be discussed. Robert C Prenic 10:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Without giving any references I believe Islam means "to make peace" and "to submit". Some scholars due to recent critism has start using that Islam meaning as Peace. However, traditionally it means to submit your will to one God. Given that I dislike all people who change truth, I will support submission (or both). --- A. L. M. 10:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

the overwhelming majority of academic sources say Islam literally means submission. very few would say Islam literally means peace because that's not really etymologically correct. ITAQALLAH 13:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you won't forget that etymology is not the same as the current meaning. The word "Islam" today means the religion. Etymologically it is related to words meaning "submission" and "peace". Perhaps it is etymologically closer to "submission". Itsmejudith 13:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

indeed, Islam can be both a noun and a verb. as a noun, it refers to the religion, as a verb it refers to submission. it is obtained from the root S-L-M; the fourth derivative of which is aslama - from this the word `Islam` is obtained. salam is not related to the fourth variant. Lane's lexicon is a good resource for this. ITAQALLAH 13:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

we have 2 conflicting meanings of Islam's roots from these 2 sites: About.com and USC-MSA, which one to believe? ~ atif - 15:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please check google-scholar and google-books. You will find most of the time that Islam meaning is submission. Both sites are agreed on submission and stressing on it too. Traditionally that what it mean but people start stressing on Peace thing, to make western happy. --- A. L. M. 15:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel that USC-MSA is a very genuine site for Islamic text and it removes the misconception that Islam means "peace". However, don't we all agree that secondary root, if not primary, of Islam does mean "Al-salaam" or "peace". Does not it validate that Islam is derived from the word "peace"? ~ atif - 15:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A more reliable source is needed, like a book from a scholar. Last time I checked I could only find one such source, which only mentioned the common root in passing. Not notable enough for mention. - Merzbow 15:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The reliability of the USC site depends completely upon the author of the material. The page you cite is unsigned, and was created by unknown members of the politically active Muslim Students' Association. Proabivouac 22:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I can have a friend of mine check Lisaan al-Arab, it's a very thick and very detailed dictionary of the Arabic language, i'm sure some of you are familiar with it. MezzoMezzo 18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It clearly refers to the peace that you get following a surrender. Not the best sort. TharkunColl 23:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's clear then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to provide some linguistic evidence demonstrating that. I'm fairly sure that's not the case, though. I'll try to get to work on looking that up soon. MezzoMezzo 06:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't. As with the moon God nonsense above, there's nothing here but misunderstanding; pursuing it will only prolong the misery of this thread. Proabivouac 06:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add also link to site that criticize Islam like faithfreedom.org? I think that site supply a lot of information that Islamic site will never supply and people should know both side of the coin.I mean there should be pro-Islamic links and ant-Islamic links. Oren.tal 12:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section links to the criticism article, that is enough. faithfreedom.org is not a reliable source. - Merzbow 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for criticism. Arrow740 20:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow faithfreedom.org is reliable source.It is true that it has an agenda but also http://www.islamworld.net/ (Islam page) with you do include .The first one as an anti-Islamic agenda and the other has an pro-Islamic agenda.If we include the the pro-Islamic why not to include the other.faithfreedom is consider as one of the most important sites about Islam by Richard Dawkins.Richard Dawkins will not consider unreliable web-site as important if it is not reliable.Second it is also important to include this site here since many people can learn a lot from this site about Islam that they can not learn ion other web-site.That why it is important to include this site here. 132.72.41.221 16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)above all I don't find the web site http://www.islamworld.net/ reliable at all. 132.72.41.221 16:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case another solution would be to remove the islamworld.net site. WP isn't an internet directory. The links should be restricted to unbiased and scholarly resources. Richard Dawkins is not an authority on Islam - I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that he was. Itsmejudith 17:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow makes a good point, and Itmejudith makes a rather strong point as well. I think we should work with those two suggestions. MezzoMezzo 18:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree to add something about this issue in Islam#Modern times (1918–present)?-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 03:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

An interesting document, which declares invalid any human rights that are in conflict with the sharia, but too minor to be worth mentioning. Beit Or 17:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, with Beit Or, that it is too minor. Jersey John 00:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Beit Or-- Sefringle ^Talk 05:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I, too, agree with Beit Or. Proabivouac 05:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree.-- Flamgirlant 16:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are some points:

• The article says: "Within Islamic jurisprudence..." - it should be stated "Within Sunni Islamic jurisprudence..."- The Shia view should be also mentioned (they are 10% anyways). According to EoI: "According to the general doctrine of the S̲h̲īʿa, due account taken of their dogma concerning “the absence of the Imam”, who alone has the necessary competence to order war, the practice of the jihad is necessarily suspended until the re-appearance of the Imam or the ad hoc appointment of a vicar designated by him for this task."

-- Aminz 08:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You missed a word of two, and please quote at greater length, I don't have the article presently. Arrow740 09:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear to me of the information you are requesting. EoI opens a new paragraph with the statement: "According to the general doctrine of the S̲h̲īʿa, due account taken of their dogma concerning “the absence of the Imām”, who alone has the necessary competence to order war, the practice of the d̲j̲ihād is necessarily suspended until the re-appearance of the Imām or the ad hoc appointment of a vicar designated by him for this task. The Zaydī sect, however, which does not recognize this dogma, follows the same teaching as that of the Sunnī doctrine." -- Aminz 23:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

On its face, your second point sounds topical and reasonable. Proabivouac 09:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this really a Sunni-Shia thing? To my knowledge the Zaydi do have Imams and hence any restriction along the lines explained by Aminz does not apply? How about the Nizaris or other Ismailis? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Zaydi's don't follow as they don't recognize the dogma concerning “the absence of the Imām”. I don't know about Ismai'ilis. -- Aminz 05:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, do the Zaydis simply have an Imam or do they reject the necessity of that Imam for the declaration of Jihad? Because the latter is a dogma - the absence of the Imam among Twelvers is a fact(whether you believe him to be in hiding or dead or non-existent). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know to be honest. All I have is the EoI's quote mentioned above "The Zaydī sect, however,..." -- Aminz 07:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Until we make a Shia distinction, we should properly find out what it is. The current text seems perfectly accurate. Please mind the g aps, Aminz. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear that the overwhelming majority of shias (twelver shias) differ from Sunnis. That's an accurate statement-- Aminz 08:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Differ in what regard? That the Imam is needed for Jihad?

If that is the case we should state that and add that "most/Twelver Shiites" do consider the Imam to be absent.

And we cannot say "Shia" when we mean "most Shia" or can even be accurate in saying "Twelver Shia".

And please mind the g ap in front of each line. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Zaidis do have Imams. They had a seperate Caliphate ruling from Sanaa as late as 1962. They ruled along the yemen/ oman coast and east africa and have sizable populations in those regions.-- Tigeroo 14:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost I want to thank everyone for the amount of work and research put into this article recently; there's been a lot more open discussion here and that's a good thing. And in regard to the "Other Religions" section, I want to thank Beit Or for the recent additions and citations. I do have one suggestion, though. Of the citations to this section, the recent additions have only come from two sources: Bernard Lewis and Yohanan Friedmann. Lewis is a British historian and Friedmann is an Israeli professor of religion and while they're both very notable and widely used sources, it would be a good idea to include some Islamic sources as well (especially considering this is the article about Islam). What I would suggest - and i'll offer my help with this too - is to also bring some citations from scholars of Islamic jurisprudence and from the Qur'an and Hadith as well. I think it will be more well rounded, not only to bring in the actualy Islamic religious rulings on these subjects but also to get more than just two authors as the source. MezzoMezzo 23:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If they are scholars writing in scholarly publications, and not self-published or from partisan sources, then sure. But so far such sources have been few and far between; it's generally been much more fruitful to cite Western scholars who write about Islamic scholarship. The biggest issue is that it's very hard to determine if so-and-so Islamic scholar writing from the pulpit (like Qaradawi, for example) is summarizing widely-held Islamic belief or just rendering his own opinion (which may be way out of the mainstream). Qur'an and Hadith quotes can be used as long as another reliable source is cited directly backing up their relevance to the section and the interpretation given (since they are primary sources). - Merzbow 23:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You make a very good and important point. We do need to stay away from partisan sources, and as primary sources the Qur'an and Hadith would need to be backed up with relevance. Now what i'm wondering is, what do we count as a scholarly publication and where to we draw the line as far as partisan sources? I agree that guys like Qaradawi are neither neutral or representative of the mainstream, so that begs the question as to where to look. MezzoMezzo 00:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I know the answer. I suppose if there was some Islamic organization that was widely recognized as being an authoritative source for Sunni religious rulings, then we could cite such rulings. (And likewise for Shi'a). But the problem is showing this, and then finding English translations. Come to think of it I think I saw a searchable book on Amazon on Islamic law by one such organization, but I can't find it again. - Merzbow 01:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you remember roughly what the title was? Or who published it? Even if we just find Arabic stuff from them, my buddies and I (I have a friend of mine and sometimes another guy help me with looking things up) can provide translation. In the mean time, check out the Permanent Committee article and link. We have a few volumes of the religious rulings of that organization (in Arabic, but again we can provide translation). Obviously we need to look for more, but offhand that's my only suggestion for now, let me know if that is acceptable or not. MezzoMezzo 02:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

All I remember was that the title was stylistic, "River" something or other. It was by some organization that claimed to represent a consensus of Sunni Islamic scholars. This "Permanent Committee" might also be a source, but the claims made in its article are uncited; need to see some secondary sources that actually back up the claim that it is "relied upon by Muslims all over the world". - Merzbow 02:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

i don't think many would necessarily agree with using the lajnah dā`imah as a source here, although it's generally accurate and unapologetic. as for the general criteria of gauging reliability, we usually consider those sources which have academic repute - and so are expected to be published by a respected press (universities, major journals), and by an author qualified in the relative field. for the most part, this will mean reliance upon western academic material, and in terms of access it's much easier to get a hold of. i don't think we have any sort of agreement as to what kinds of Muslim sources we should use, or to what extent it should be used.. but perhaps that can be the subject of a broad community discussion in the future. ITAQALLAH 04:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be very useful to have a discussion on this, as we are caught in the cleft of having to rely on published scholarship on the one hand and to avoid systematic bias towards a Western world-view on the other. Of course, there are some Muslims who are academics in Western universities and they constitute reliable sources in WP terms. I wonder whether we could not draw more on the published output of Islamic universities in different countries? Itsmejudith 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm in touch with a lot of students at the Islamic University of Medina and Umm al-Qura, I also have one friend studying in Pakistan and one in East Africa as well. Would you guys like me to see if I can get a hold of published materials from there and submit them to see what everyone thinks? Also, Itaqallah and Merzbow do make good points about the section bloating. Maybe we should just discuss the possibility of Muslim sources now but hold off on actually putting them in until the section is trimmed down. MezzoMezzo 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

section bloating

i think the section needs a bit of a copyedit and trim.. it's currently twice as large as it previously was. i think two paragraphs is a reasonable and balanced size. ITAQALLAH 04:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It certainly shouldn't grow any larger. - Merzbow 17:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

also, i'd suggest we trim this divergence into treaty repudiation, unless we also clarify the other details about it as related by EoI (i.e. news of it must be allowed to spread through enemy territory). a more prudent suggestion IMO is to change "... only truces which can be repudiated when circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities." to "... only temporary truces.", because the fact that only temporary truces are permitted (according to EoI) already implies the rest. ITAQALLAH 17:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Jihad is meant to be an endless war against non-believers. You are removing the information that a truce is only a device for Muslims to use to eventually conquer. Arrow740 04:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What does EoI actually say? Proabivouac 06:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, the section quite clearly states its perpetuality and that permanent peace is not applicable. i've already stated that we should represent the issue wholly or refrain from this divergence altogether.

Proabivouac: "The duty of the jihād exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. “ Until the day of the resurrection ” , and “ until the end of the world ” say the maxims. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict. It is, however, recognized that such repudiation should be brought to the notice of the infidel party, and that he should be afforded sufficient opportunity to be able to disseminate the news of it throughout the whole of his territory." ITAQALLAH 11:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, thank you for that excerpt. "Jihad is perpetual in nature; in theory, there can be no permanent peace with non-Muslim states, only truces which can be repudiated when circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities." strikes me as a fair and appropriately understated summary of this material. The "until the..." phrases and the ten year limit are too much detail for this article.

As for the last point, the notice clause is more important than the archaic dissemination provision, which has been moot since the invention of the telegraph. Still, I see nothing about the current language which suggests surprise attacks; indeed repudiation (which comes from "divorce") connotes overtness. However, the notice clause might be handled with a few well-placed words if one finds this insufficient. Proabivouac 16:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

alright... i can compromise on that. what do you think about trimming the Other religions section, and my edits in that regard? ITAQALLAH 16:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking now... Proabivouac 19:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Most seem fine, though this one destroys the link to the following material. I'm sorry I've not had time to deal with this. The section is indeed too long. Proabivouac 20:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not too long when taken in the context of the whole article. Most readers of the article will be non-Muslims and they will be keenly interested in how Islam views other religions. Furthermore, Islam is unique in having a hierarchy of religions wherein the status of all non-Muslims is defined based their religion and the relation with the islamic state. This is a substantial part of the islamic jurisprudence and must be appropriately covered in this article. Beit Or 21:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's the first paragraph which doesn't really belong here: this has more to do with how Islam represents itself than how it treats other religions, and is largely (though not entirely) duplicated in the preceding "Beliefs" section. Proabivouac 21:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am indifferent as to where this material should be placed in "Other religions" or "Beliefs" section. A case can be made for the latter, but I didn't yet hear it. The "Beliefs" section as it currently stands is problematic in many ways. For one thing, it uses the words "prophets" and "messengers" interchangeably, though they are not one and the same thing in Islam. In addition, it is not clear that all prophets preached Islam: this is a complex subject and there are differences of opinion between Islamic scholars on that matter. Beit Or 21:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, i think the section is too detailed for an introductory overview, and in some cases there is needless repetiton. [19] [20] we really don't assign weight according to the demographics of our audience. two good paragraphs should be enough to mention the introductory details about Islam and other religions. ITAQALLAH 21:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

the reason for removing it was that the stated principle is linked directly to the rulings (see below), the extra sentence is from two pages further on. ITAQALLAH 20:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please review the following proposal. I think it is more comprehensive and addresses all the issues raised by various other editors as well.-- Tigeroo 17:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your proposed rewrite is guaranteed to leave readers confused. Proabivouac 19:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Which part. It is a proposal, and as such is meant to outline an addressal of various concerns. Arrangement is ofcourse work in progress. If clarity is the only concern that can be improved. I tend to have a problem with sentence overruns on occasions and can see that problem here. Any input on the actual content and layout?-- Tigeroo 21:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

also, i think "... non-Muslims may not inherit from their Muslim relatives... " is very simplistic:

1. according to Waines, Muslims/Dhimmis may not inherit from eachother at all (p. 98): "While a Muslim and a dhimmi could not inherit eachother's property, the granting of legacies or gifts was not prohibited."
2. Friedmann first mentions the principle about the exaltedness of Islam. he then says that because of this, non-Muslim men may not marry Muslim women. next, he discusses how a minority of jurists drew an analogy with this ruling, determining that a Muslim may inherit from a dhimmi but not vice versa (in the same way Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women but not the opposite). the extract is as follows:

The principle is expressed in the statement “Islam is exalted and nothing is exalted above it” (al-Islām ya˓lū wa lā yu˓lā), 115 and has ramifications in numerous fields of Muslim thought and practice. As we shall see later, it is the main reason for prohibiting Muslim women from wedding infidel husbands. 116 Those early traditionists who maintain (as a minority opinion) that unbelievers cannot inherit from Muslims but Muslims can inherit from unbelievers use a similar argumentation. 117 Ibn Rushd says that this group saw affinity between the laws of interfaith inheritance and interfaith marriages: “As we are allowed to marry their women but we are not allowed to give them our women in marriage — the same is the case with inheritance” (wa shabbahū dhālika bi-nisā˒ihim fa-qālū: kamā yajūzu lanā an nankiḥa nisā˒ahum wa lā yajūzu lanā an nunkiḥahum nisā˒anā — ka-dhālika al-irth). 118 When a Jew died, was survived by a Muslim brother of his and the question of inheritance was brought before Mu˓ādh b. Jabal, Mu˓ādh ruled that the Muslim should receive his Jewish brother's inheritance according to the purported prophetic dictum saying that “Islam increases” (inna al-islām yazīdu). 119

thus, Friedmann is not postulating that the mere fact that a non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim is indicative of Islam's exaltedness (except in the view of the minority of jurists who believe that inheritence from dhimmis is permissable), as Muslims can't inherit from non-Muslims either. ITAQALLAH 20:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that. I can only agree with you. Proabivouac 20:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read further, for example, the abovementioned work by Ibn Rushd (Distinguished Jurist's Primer, vol. II, pp. 426-427):

There are some issues here, disagreement about which is well-known among the jurists. They are related to the bases of inheritance and must be mentioned here. Among these is the agreement of the Muslims that the non-believer does not inherit from the Muslim due to the words of the Exalted, "Allah will not give the disbelievers any way (of success) against the believers". and because of what is established through the words of the Prophet..., "The Muslim does not inherit from the disbeliever, nor the disbeliever from the Muslim". They disagreed about the inheritance of the Muslim from the disbeliever and the the inheritance of the Muslim from the apostate.

Ibn Rushd then proceeds to outline the arguments of the early jurists who drew the analogy with the marriage and wanted to prove that a Muslim may inherit from a non-Muslim. Nevertheless, the prohibition for non-Muslims to inherit from Muslims is based on the quoted above Quran 4:141, which affirms the supremacy of Muslims. This is sufficient to demonstrate the point made in the article. Beit Or 21:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

that's not what Friedmann's is asserting, and to interpret 4:141 like this is original research. ITAQALLAH 21:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't: Ibn Rushd says that this interpretation is the consensus opinion. Beit Or 21:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not cite Ibn Rushd? Proabivouac 21:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What's here makes total sense, but, per the excerpt above, it doesn't seem accurate to attributable to Friedmann. Though I am confused: if Muslims can't inherit from non-Muslims, what about all the early Muslims who inherited from their non-Muslims (e.g. their parents)? What would be the reason for such a prohibition? Proabivouac 21:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, the early jusrists were of the opinion that Muslims may inherit from non-Muslims. The view that Muslims cannot inherit from non-Muslims only became dominant when the above hadith attributed to Muhammad was put into circulation. Also, I am pretty sure that in Shi'a Islam Muslim children inherit the property of their non-Muslim parents at the expense of other, non-Muslim children, but let me check the sources. Beit Or 21:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm on my way out now, but per my comments above, I think we should consider merging the first para about primordial religion into the "beliefs" section where this material is already covered to some extent. I'd also removed the otherwise perfectly decent sentence (my rewritten version at least, the irst was quite awkward) about children being born Muslims, because it broke up the "religious split" narrative.

The apostasy material is topical, but has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph to which it's currently appended. Proabivouac 21:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

i found some material of relevance in Reuven Firestone's work "Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam" (Oxford University Press) related to this current dispute. i wasn't actually looking for it, but came across it while looking for something else. anyway (p. 17):

The meaning of jihad

The semantic meaning of the Arabic term jihād has no relation to holy war or even war in general. It derives, rather from the root j.h.d., the meaning of which is to strive, exert oneself, or take extraordinary pains. Jihād is a verbal noun of the third Arabic form of the root jahada, which is defined classically as "exerting one's utmost power, efforts, endeavors, or ability in contending with an object of disapprobation." 14 Such an object is often categorized in the literature as deriving from one of three sources: a visible enemy, the devil, and aspects of one's own self. There are, therefore, many kinds of jihād, and most have nothing to do with warfare. "Jihād of the heart," for example, denotes struggle against one's own sinful inclinations, while "jihād of the tongue" requires speaking on behalf of the good and forbidding evil. 15 ...

(removed large quote from a narration about the varying kinds of jihad)

... Muhammad is also credited with saying: "The best jihād is [speaking] a word of justice to a tyrannical ruler." 17 The qualifying phrase "in the path of God" (fi sabīl Allah) specifically distinguishes the activity of jihād as furthering or promoting God's kingdom on earth. It can be done, for example, by simply striving to behave ethically and by speaking without causing harm to others or by actively defending Islam and propagating the faith. Jihād as religiously grounded warfare, sometimes referred to as "jihād of the sword" (jihād al-sayf), is subsumed under the last two categories of defending Islam and propagating the faith, though these need not be accomplished only through war. When the term is used without qualifiers such as "of the heart" or "of the tongue," however, it is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam (equivalent to "jihād of the sword"), and the merits of engaging in such jihād are described plentifully in the most-respected religious works. 18 Nevertheless, Muslim thinkers, and particularly ascetics and mystics, often differentiate between the "greater jihād" (al-jihād al-akbar) and the "lesser jihād" (al-jihād al-asghar), with the former representing the struggle against the self and only the "lesser jihād" referring to warring in the path of God. 19

-- ITAQALLAH 19:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, how was my suggested addition from Britannica Encyclopedia on the five types of jihad. -- Aminz 09:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with "in the way of God", since the sentence is phrased as giving jihad's meaning, not its literal meaning. - Merzbow 03:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with the article is that it fails to mention the new interpretations of jihad (on the behalf of some renowned scholars) which disagree with usage of warfare except in defense. -- Aminz 09:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Too bad those guys weren't around during Muhammad's time. Arrow740 09:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's refrain from trolling. Such comments do not generate confidence in the assumption of good faith on your part for the purposes of this discussion.-- Tigeroo 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

One can always fnd some quotes like the two above in a serious book on jihad. However, 99 percent of Firestone's work is about, yes, warfare. Beit Or 20:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a good reason that they mention those aspects, because that is the bigger picture and to put things in context. Just because Firestone and most other editors then proceed to focus themselves on the subset topic that they are interested in exploring, aka the military one does not mean the other part does not exist or is not a significant aspect.-- Tigeroo 14:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Jihad thus cannot be equated semantically with holy war, for its meaning is much broader, and includes many activities unrelated to warfare..... It would however not be inaccurate, however, to suggest a definition of a subcategory of "jihad of the sword" as any act of warring authorized by legitimate Muslim authorities on behalf of the religious community and determined to contribute to the greater good of Islam...The present volume centers on the origins of holy war in Islam while not intending to provide a full understanding of the meaning of the term in classical Islam."

The above is from Firestone himself. Quite clearly he indicates that there is a lot more to the term, again as supported by other sources I have quoted on this page such as Stephen Humphreys as well. Even when considering the meaning of the term in classical Islam. Jihad being solely warfare is clearly not supported by the sources, they all treat it a sub-set. The sub-section is too narrow in its focus giving undue weightage to one aspect of the term. I thus propose to place the larger context of the meaning in the beginning of the definition of the Jihad section before developing the sub-category of warfare aspect.-- Tigeroo 14:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You're beating a dead horse. Arrow740 20:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Beit Or 21:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but can you do me the courtesy of explaining your cryptic comments?-- Tigeroo 21:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody deleted the characterization of Islam as an Abrahamic religion, It must be restored.-- BMF81 10:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not an appropriate term for an edit summary. An editor, since banned, accused me of it, and another experienced editor intervened to explain that it is the job of WP to present the facts as described in the good secondary sources, not to condemn or absolve. In which case "whitewashing" can never come into the picture. Itsmejudith 09:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Itaqallah was removing such sourced material. Arrow740 09:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Then tell him on this page what the value of the material is. No need for established editors on this page to fall out now when civility has got us as far as FA. Itsmejudith 09:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

i had made the proposal to trim the section back to the size it previously was before the unilateral rewrite, and Arrow740 had ample oppurtunity to discuss or object to this proposal. unfortunately, "sourced material" will have to be removed if we are to reduce the current bloating, i removed that which was unduly repetitive [21] [22], the meaning is still the same. please address each edit individually, substantial blanket reverts with a few words in an edit summary- quite intentionally undoing the uncontroversial edits also- aren't helpful at all, nor sufficient a justification. ITAQALLAH 11:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I made my reasoning very clear, and it is correct. Arrow740 20:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

please address the issues with these edits. the removal of repetition does not detract from the meaning, and as such isn't necessary. regarding the sentence about exaltedness, Friedmann associates the rulings directly with the initial principle, as you can see from the extract above. ITAQALLAH 21:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I want to give a hearty "Good job" to all the people who helped this article achieve Featured Status. I like the fact that it is semi-protected, which will prevent most vandals from messing with it. I'll try my best to revert anything wrong, but you people are QUICK, so that could be difficult. MarkBrownMusic 00:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to applaud everyone who worked on this article as well. It is mostly very well written. If I think of any objections besides the one I've already edited, I'll post here. Also, aren't featured articles normally not protected to allow new editors to edit? I would imagine most of them come to the Featured Article of the day. Again, great job. ΞΞΞ 00:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This article contains only one mention of terrorism, when the vast majority of terrorists in the world today are adherents to this religion. There is no place for bias in wikipedia, and while I am not suggesting that the article say that all muslims are terrorists, lets be fair and at least devote a section to terrorism within islam since it's such a major problem in the world today.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.61.226 ( talk • contribs) It should be noted that this user is User:Rmisiak, not logged in, as noted here.

It's covered sufficiently in Islam#Jihad. It's a 1500-year-old religion with a billion followers, so the actions of a few hundred crazies in recent times shouldn't be given undue weight because of bias towards recent events. Also, if you look at List of designated terrorist organizations, you'll see it's not a Muslim majority- these people tend to be spread out evenly in the population.- Wafulz 01:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly disagree. The most relevant aspect of a religion is its impact on modern society. In the case of Islam, the most relevant aspects of its existence (worldwide) today are violence, human rights violations and terrorism. This article does not even come close to addressing these issues properly. I certainly agree that it is unfair to categorize all Muslims as terrorist as that is completely untrue. However, violence is a major part of this religion's existence and that needs to be addressed. As it should be with all religions, regardless of how old they are or how many followers they have. If we are to paint an accurate picture of Islam, this article needs to increase in its level of criticism and focus more on Islam's impact on the world today. 86.157.213.118 02:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you here. The muslims, on the other hand do not, and as a result we cannot say much about Islamic terrorism without this article becomming a POV fork, either for or against Islam, so we are stuck with little said about terrorism. I incourage you to read WP:NPOV.-- Sefringle ^Talk 02:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The muslims, on the other hand do not... Oh please, let's not go there. -- tariqabjotu 02:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

(Five edit conflicts later) Well, now you're getting into the realm of original/personal conclusions about both the relevant aspects of religion and what makes Islam relevant. This article has been through several reviews that you should read through. Review one, two, three, four, and five.- Wafulz 02:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe extending the criticism section or expanding the religion's impact on modern society would be contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I have not come to any personal conclusions here, it is simple fact that the violence in Islam is a major aspect of today's society and I feel this should be addressed properly in this article, as to represent a comprehensive overview. 86.157.213.118 02:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, but at the same time, adding modern events isn't realistically examining the whole subject with a long-term historical perspective. Similarly, the Crusades are only mentioned once in the article on Christianity.- Wafulz 02:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The article already addresses the historical aspect of Islam very well. Adding information about the religion's impact on modern society would not detract from this whatsoever. As I stated before, violence should be expanded on with regards to all religions, as it has a substantial impact on our world today. Christianity's violent aspects should also be expanded upon, though that is another discussion. My whole point was that a broader and more complete view of Islam is necessary and current events and modern relevancies would help to accomplish this. 86.157.213.118 02:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

To explain more about Islamic terrorism here would be blatant recentism. We have plenty of other articles, including Islamist terrorism, that deal with this topic at great length. -- tariqabjotu 02:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion; if there is a consensus there, it might happen, but I doubt there will be agreement to do this.-- Sefringle ^Talk 02:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] That sort of section would be the epitome of recentism, topped only by a "In popular culture" section of every time The Simpsons, Family Guy, or The Colbert Report has mentioned Islam. ShadowHalo 03:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it recentism but most of the claims are inaccurate. The most "relevant aspects of its existence (worldwide) today" are not "violence, human rights violations and terrorism". Nil Einne 09:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If anything this article is biased against Islam and the anti-Muslims are clearly pushing to have this page made as Islamophobic as possible. Agoras 03:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

yeah; right.-- Sefringle ^Talk 03:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most everyone seems to agree that this article is hopelessly biased; the only point of contention is if it's biased for or against Islam. Proabivouac 04:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is completely not NPOV; it doesn't even mention my beliefs. It treats Islam as if it definitely exists, which I thoroughly refute. I even made my own website about how Islam doesn't exist, per se. That the article doesn't mention this means it's hopelessly POV. ShadowHalo 04:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking?!?! Of course Islam exists. Agoras 05:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you think I was serious? I was just joking about how everyone is saying it's POV because it's not written from their point of view. ShadowHalo 06:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't want to have the views on Islam of the average layman here. Christopher Connor 12:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

what is the basis of this extensive spam of Guru Nanak's musings and thoughts about Islam, from what appears to be a partisan source. it's quite peculiar that such an unbalanced insertion was saved till the Main page appearance, without even a proposal, suggestion or hint on the talk page. i don't think it belongs here.. ITAQALLAH 02:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The author is definitely a reliable source for this information, having been a professor at the Sikh university. I don't see anything controversial here. Guru Nanak was the founder of the major post-Muhammad faith and his generally neutral reactions to Islam are quite notable. Arrow740 02:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The timing is coincidental. That might become more clear to you soon. Arrow740 02:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

the timing appears to be quite calculated - we had already worked out the balance for this section through several months of collaboration, and within just over an hour of its main page appearance you insert this adulation without proposing, discussing, or even seek consensus for this substantial insertion (nor explaining your insertion through edit summaries). the source is partisan (as are Nomani and Mubarakpuri, remember?)... let's not be inconsistent in our stance, Arrow. currently, the section is unduly slanted towards Nanak's personal musings. ITAQALLAH 03:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The source is a reliable one for Nanak's views. I think you're reverting the editor here, not the edit. Arrow740 04:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

partisan sources aren't reliable Arrow. on what basis are Nanak's views notable enough that they merit dedicating that much of the section to what he thinks? the previous version was balanced, and the accepted consensus version. adding substantial, narrowly-focused material to the section unbalances it. ITAQALLAH 04:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The notability of Nanak's views has already been established. The source has been designated as the foremost source on Sikhism by the Sikh temporal authority. Western scholarship on Sikhism is almost nonexistent. I don't see the dispute here as the material appears to be uncontroversial, and I don't understand why you're so adamant about this. Maybe you're upset that this is figure of another religion being discussed in the article about your religion. It could simply be that you are undoing a good edit because I'm the one making it. Arrow740 04:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

if there's so few academic sources discussing Sikhism or Nanak's view on Islam, it's a good indicator of the undue weight being assigned here - which, in your version, takes up virtually half of the section. ITAQALLAH 04:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, I'm not certain it was a good idea to insert it at this time without discussionl; nerves are frayed, and as you see edit-warring resulted. There will be lots of time to look at this (or any other issue) after the article is off the main page. Proabivouac 04:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Timing? How is this relevant? Now, please explain how this section is "unduly slanted towards Nanak's personal musings"?-- Sefringle ^Talk 04:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

err, just under half of the section related to the numerous religions connected with Islam is about what Guru Nanak personally thinks. the consensus version is balanced and has a fair mention of Sikhism. see WP:UNDUE. ITAQALLAH 04:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism isn't even in the category of Abrahamic religions. -- Aminz 04:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Though the section isn't titled "Abrahamic religions." It is titled "other religions." There is a difference.-- Sefringle ^Talk 04:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think Sikhism should be given much more weight than all other religions? -- Aminz 04:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is giving undue weight to one religion versus others. That section talks about many other religions as well. -- Aminz 04:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, why have you also been restoring User:Agoras's undiscussed changes? Proabivouac 04:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you refering to? -- Aminz 04:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to this, but you didn't do that in your last edit, so I'm going to guess that, like my restoral of the new Sikhism material, it was in error. All is well. We can take a calm look at the Sikhism material when the article is off the main page. Proabivouac 04:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to remove the quote. -- Aminz 05:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Just one thing - the fact that something is written somewhere doesn't mean that it's necessarily true. Especially when criticizing people (or there religion), we should make sure to say who says those things, and not just as a footnote, but in the text. In short, use more "according to" and similar devices. Zocky | picture popups 03:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Notes section is very large. Please use the template

{{scroll box|text={{reflist|2}}|height=250px}}

. Then it would much shorter. -- Hermitage17 03:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can all those involved please stop edit-warring on this article while it's on the Main Page? -- tariqabjotu 03:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I would like to revert Aminz' last edit, but without the recent Sikhism addition, which was not discussed prior to this point, and has proved controversial. Alternately, someone else (such as yourself) might do it for me: I've a feeling this may be the blue moon on which I am actually forced to count reverts, there have been several bad-faith reports lately in this space, and I made quite a few productive changes to one section earlier today. Proabivouac 04:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Which edit are you talking about? I have removed the Sikhism addition. -- Aminz 04:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I've answered above, your last edit was exactly what I wanted to do - it was the earlier one that bugged me. All is well. Proabivouac 04:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The new flow of this section follows exactly a Bat Ye'or style... The editors have done a good job making the section POV. -- Aminz 04:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been there for awhile now. Why didn't you say something earlier? Anyhow, what would you like changed? Let's discuss it here. Proabivouac 04:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The previous version of section was neutral [23].

There are a lot of positive things about the status of Non-Muslims under Islam. But the previous version is unbiased.

Aside from these, there are a lot of other things such as say Islam_and_Judaism#Interplay_between_Jewish_and_Islamic_thought which could be covered in this section. The section, after neutralized, will become too specialized and leaves out interactions between Islam, Christianity and Judaism and others. -- Aminz 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The previous version was substantially less informative, and atrociously written, e.g.:

"Regarding religions other than Judaism and Christianity Islamic law states that unless there is a pact between members of these religions and Muslims, they are to be fought until they accept Islam, are enslaved, or killed."

The new version does not state that agnostics and atheists aren't tolerated, so there's one way it's become "less critical" (by the contemporary Western prejudices where tolerance of atheism and agnosticism is thought good.) Proabivouac 05:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph explains Dhimmi issue and mentions existence of "legal restrictions". The new version is not a summary of Dhimmi article. A summary of Dhimmi article can be this: "Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands had the status of dhimmi and were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy".[90] They were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute (jizya) and acknowledging Muslim supremacy. Dhimmis were subject to legal restrictions such as prohibitions against bearing arms or bans against giving testimony in court in cases involving Muslims.[91]"

As someone pointed out other sections should not become much bigger than Tawhid section. Tawhid, is the central pillar of Islam (like Love in Christianity) and everything is explained through that (as in Christian life, everything is supposed to center around Love). The new version goes quite unnecessarily into the details of the law of marriage and the details of certain arguments made by later Muslim jurists to justify them.

The second paragraph focuses on non-scriptural faiths which is fair. One paragraph on Scriptural faiths and one about non-Scriptural faiths. But it can be edited for grammer.-- Aminz 05:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very Bat Ye'or-like that section was. Agoras 05:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that you are a sockpuppet of a banned user. Proabivouac 05:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the subsection dedicated to angels, there should also be a subsection dedicated to Jinn. --( Ptah, the El Daoud 05:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

The angel has been mentioned because belief in it is one of the main beliefs of Muslims while belief in Jinn isn't so important.

According to the Qur'an all Muslims should believe in God, his revelations, his angels, his messengers, and in the "Day of Judgment".

-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 05:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If anything we should have jinn and angels section... we don`t want to make this article too long. -- 74.101.255.108 05:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a wrong generalization. We should say some of the devout Muslims instead of other Muslims in the following sentence.

While the Muslim-Arab elite engaged in conquest and empire other Muslims questioned the value of worldly life, emphasized poverty, humility and an avoidance of sins based on a lifestyle of renunciation of bodily desires. -- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 05:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it`s not the place of an encyclopedia to be judging the devotion of religious followers. You may be able to make a case for `orthodox`, but not devout. -- 74.101.255.108 05:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Islamic term is Zahid(زاهد)

It doesn't mean orthodox. There may be a better translation for this word.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 05:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Karl, once again you have changed the article arbitrarily without refering to the original source [24]. The book is available on books.google.com and you can see what Lewis says -- Aminz 07:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This part is weak and wrong.

The Kharijites are a sect that dates back to the early days of Islam. The only surviving branch of the Kharijites (which was itself divided into numerous sub-sects) is the Ibadi. Ibadism is distinguished from Sunni Islam by its rejection of Uthman and Ali, and from Shi'ism by its belief that the Muslim leader should be chosen on the basis of his faith rather than his ancestry. Ibadi Islam is noted for its strictness, but unlike the Kharijites proper, Ibadis do not regard major sins as automatically rendering a Muslim an unbeliever. Most Ibadi Muslims live in Oman.

This introduction is clearer. Ibāḍīs regard other Muslims not as kuffar "unbelievers" (as most Kharijite groups did), but as kuffar an-niˤma "those who deny God's grace...The righteous Imamate is a topic of great importance in Ibadi legal literature. The Imam should be chosen for his knowledge and piety, without any regard to race or lineage. He should be chosen by the elders of the community, who are also obligated to depose him if he acts unjustly. [25]

On the other hand Shia doesn't separate knowledge, faith, justice and ancestry. It means that Shia believe their Imams are knowledgeable, just and faithful person who are appointed by God and introduced by the prophet. It means Shia doesn't recognize somebody as Imam just because of his ancestry.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 08:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that it was protected before, but is the vandalism so high that new users cannot test-edit? I thought the philosophy behind unprotecting the main page FA was to show that Wikipedia really is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit?- h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

On this one article, I think there should be an exception. Given the recent attempted terrorist attacks in the UK, vandalism levels would doubtless be so high that we simply couldn't cope: in addition, this is hardly a vandalism-free article anyway. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 09:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

How about we just try unprotecting it for, say, half an hour and see what happens?-- A bit iffy 11:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that will happen. This article is already semi-protected from constant IP vandalism, it wasn't on the Main Page a few days ago because of edit warring, and there's edit warring now, even with semi-protection. Removing the semi-protection would likely just end up as a Bad Thing. ShadowHalo 12:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the semi-protection. How often have you seen a religious article as a featured article on the main page? Such articles are the focus of a lot of edit warring, POV, and vandalism, and it is a real feat and tribute to Wikipedia that this article made it to the position it is in. My congratulations to the editors that worked on this article. aliasd· U· T 14:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, given events in the UK, I would question the wisdom of making this today's featured article in the first place. It's a bit like waving a red rag at a bull. Nick Cooper 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been schedule since long time to be featured on July 1. --- A. L. M. 15:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

no, it should be unprotected while it is faotd: any fa linked from the main page will get a lot of vandalism, but that never was a problem, since that is rolled back almost immediately. It can always be re-sprotected once it is off the main page. dab (𒁳) 16:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And now we have the first main-page FA article to be fully protected. Was this wise? - Merzbow 17:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably. The reason for not semi-protecting the TFA is because featured articles can still be improved. However this article has been discussed ad nauseum to the point that its quality will decline if unprotected. Even when semi-protected, it's the target of many users pushing their POV and edit warring against the consensus that's built up. ShadowHalo 23:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above in [26], the "Islam and Other religions" section has undergone a recent edit and its POV problem needs to be fixed(it is not a summary of Dhimmi article). It needs much work but I've added this line [27] from a reliable suource (author: Professor at Florida State University) to make it more NPOV for now. -- Aminz 09:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The same statement is mentioned by others e.g. Malise Ruthven (2004), Oxford University Press: "Compared to pre-Enlightenment Christendom, the record of Islam is impressive." Lewis and others also say similar things. These sources could be added if one feels necessary. -- Aminz 09:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, your recent edits clearly mean to game the system: having blown your 3RR, you have since sought to add things to the same effect, first a POV tag, now a ridiculously unencyclopedic apologetic. [28] The cynicism underlying these edits is palpable; by any fair measure your last two edits are de facto reverts, in that they were intended as substitutes for the reverts you couldn't do. You've distinguished yourself as one of several editors who have taken this main page appearance for an occasion to edit war and disrupt. Proabivouac 10:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not gaming the system. How is it that adding POV tag to a POV section is wrong. What I've added is well-sourced and true. I agree that the best way is to "illustrate" something rather than just saying it is true. But this section is badly POV. Beit Or added it without discussion and you and Sefringle, and Arrow740 backed it up through edit-warring. The previous version before Beit Or rewrote it was unbiased. This one is badly biased. Aside from these, i didn't see you complaining of anti-islamic bias in the section. -- Aminz 10:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, when these scholars and also Lewis commend pre-modern Islamic tolerance, to me it doesn't matters if you call it "ridiculously apologetic". -- Aminz 10:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aminz here. If the material was well-sourced then you should not have removed it. --- A. L. M. 10:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't edit-war anything.

The previous version was an uninformative and poorly-written mess. Please stop looking at everything in terms of a POV war. There is actually an active discussion on how to improve this further, but you've not been a part of it. For example, what does the apostasy sentence have to do with the rest of the paragraph to which its appended? And cannot these two sentences be compressed into one? ("Apostasy is prohibited and is punishable by death.") Such considerations are, as always, entirely lost upon those who think "POV! POV! POV!" rather than topicality, encyclopedicity, style and tone. Proabivouac 10:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I said clearly why this section goes into excessive details of how jurists used qiyas to derive certain judical laws etc etc. This section follows a narrow path and is by no means a summary of Dhimmi article.

Since Beit Or rewrote the section into this POV- Bat Ye'or-looking format, you and some other editors have been on an edit war to keep it (without noting that it wasn't discussed in the first place).

That sentence is correct. Probably nobody except Bat Ye'or, Spencer et al, (and you) would not deny it. If it is not consistent with the flow of the rest of the section, it only means that something is missing from the rest of the section (and that's what makes it POV.

It is not only me who says that this section is POV. You don't own the article Proab. -- Aminz 10:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Value judgments, such as stating one religion's record is "better" than another's, are inherently unencyclopedic, Aminz. This isn't a popularity contest between religions. Proabivouac 10:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a value judgment: it is a relative measurement/description. Nay. As you said in your view it is ridiculous and that's why you and others edit-war over keeping biased material while rejecting the neutral version [29] because you think one sentence of it doesn't flow well or (it is not informative- what does this mean by comparing these two versions is clear). -- Aminz 10:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

furthermore, I am not sure if Aminz has violated 3rr but you have certainly. That was your fourth revert of the day. --- A. L. M. 10:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I see, so you're going to hold my earlier copyedits - made by general request - against me, along with a revert of a sockpuppet. And, don't forget that a comment out is also an addition, just as are Aminz' post-3RR edits. Bad faith reports are bad, ALM; don't make them. Proabivouac 10:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You have yourself called each of your edit as revert, except the last one which you are saying commenting out. They are reverts indeed. However, still I am NOT reporting you. Please do self revert to Aminz sourced version. --- A. L. M. 10:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

One of these reverts was immediately self-reverted. [30] That's zero reverts, not two. Proabivouac 10:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

okay. I agree. --- A. L. M. 10:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This section is totally not NPOV. Too much weight is given to Friedmann (who's views may not be NPOV to begin with). I don't see a problem in re-adding the text inserted by Aminz to give it some balance. It is sourced text (to two different sources) and the addition of it does not make the section biased, rather it balances is to make it somewhat NPOV. → AA ^{( talk • contribs)} — 11:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz' addition here does not "balance" anything, as at no point does (nor should) the article advance generic and uninformative value judgments ("exemplary") or draw any comparisons to Christian treatment of Jews in Europe. "Exemplary" according to whose standards, those of contemporary liberals? How presumptious. To institute Islamic law, under which Muslims have more rights than non-Muslims, is exemplary according to Islam's own terms. It's not a negative against which the negatives of europe, according the same unacknowledged metric, are to be weighed to decide who is worse. Proabivouac 00:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

we have been treated with another surprise POV-oriented overhaul of a section which enjoyed consensus. this behaviour of making sweeping changes and showing complete disrespect towards consensus, is becoming quite disruptive- even moreso as it's not been discussed or proposed, and timed to coincide with the main page appearance. ITAQALLAH 15:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching and have noticed this too. People know this is a controversial article - the mature thing to do is to discuss any serious changes here first, collect input, and reach a consensus with everybody. MezzoMezzo 15:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

some people are reverting, stating that the version restored is the consensus version. not so, it is this version which is the consensus version. ITAQALLAH 16:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. MezzoMezzo 16:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed so! With all the edit-warring going on, I hadn't gone back far enough in the history. → AA ^{( talk • contribs)} — 16:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo your restoration is not correct [31]. You have removed some material but have not added previous material. --- A. L. M. 16:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks correct per oldid in Itaqallah's comment above. This is the version of the article that was setup for pp before "going live" (i.e. before all hell broke loose :). → AA ^{( talk • contribs)} — 16:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is correct. But Can some removed tags added [32]. --- A. L. M. 16:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

the spurious tagging should really be removed. ITAQALLAH 16:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Review of Beit Or improvements

I have finally gotten a chance to sit down and analyze this edit, which proved so controversial ("disruption", "sweeping changes", etc.) [33]

• This sentence

The process of divorce in Islam is known as talaq, which is more easily initiated by the husband than by the wife.

was unsourced, vague and poorly written (passive language again!) Consider Beit Or's replacement:

The process of divorce in Islam is known as talaq, which the husband initiates by pronouncing the word "divorce"(ref).

Accordingly, I've reinstated Beit Or's improvement.

• This sentence was also part of Beit Or's edit to the Family Life section:

The woman's share of inheritance is generally half of that of a man with the same rights of succession.(ref)

As it is sourced, topical and neutrally stated, I've restored it.

• Finally, we have this unsourced passage

Islam prescribes mutual respect and responsibility among family members, along with legal rights and obligations. The father is seen as financially responsible for the family, and is obliged to cater for their well-being.

which Beit Or replaced with this:

Women are considered to be inferior to men and in the hierarchy they are placed along with the children and the weak as being in need of protection. The life of a woman is worth half the life of a man, and two female witnesses are equivalent to one male witness.(ref)

I suspect that this is what the fuss was all about. A few observations: 1) the first sentence of the current passage is insipid and uninformative, and should be removed in any event as useless (update: I've done so) 2) both sentences of the current passage are unsourced 3) Beit Or's passage is sourced 4) The second sentence of Beit Or's passage is not obviously relevant to "Family Life", but to the status of women generally. If this analysis is accepted, we are then left with two competing statements which address the same topic in a strikingly different manner:

The father is seen as financially responsible for the family, and is obliged to cater for their well-being.

Women are considered to be inferior to men and in the hierarchy they are placed along with the children and the weak as being in need of protection.

I await your feedback. Proabivouac 20:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please offer more information about which version you dislike and which one prefer. I'm losing track in the midst of all these changes. I would need to see what the sources are before coming to a decision. I haven't so far seen any good source that would make the blanket statement that women are "inferior" to men in Islam. If the source for that is adequate, then the statement contradicts the impression given by most other good sources and both views would have to be shown. I also think that in the context of family life married women's property rights should be given due space, as this is a point on which Islamic law is quite different from many other legal traditions. Itsmejudith 20:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit in question, which was denounced in the preceding section, is here. I prefer exactly those portions of Beit Or's edits which I've reinstated, as detailed above. The source for "inferior" appears to be the Encyclopedia of Islam. I am uncomfortable with this language, but it would be good to have a sourced statement here: I introduce these contrasting treatments for discussion. Neither version mentions anything about married women's property rights. Proabivouac 21:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

all the passages in the version i wrote were sourced: i left all citations till the end. ITAQALLAH 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that, and everyone should be aware that we were specifically meant to take all references to the end of the sentence after the Good Article review. I seem to remember that it was Beit Or who stipulated that? If these (three good) references were at the end of the paragraph, then that is wholly consistent with the style of the article. Yes, I'm aware that married women's property rights haven't been covered in any recent version, I'm just suggesting that they should be in order to provide the full picture of women's status in Islamic family law. Also, on divorce, am I right in thinking that there is more than one way that a divorce may be arranged? If talaq is to be described in the way that Beit Or's edit does, then shouldn't other ways be described as well. Thanks. Itsmejudith 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I see; my apologies for having assumed that they were unsourced. Are references supposed to be moved to the end of the paragraph, rather than to the end of the sentence? Perhaps someone did recommend this, but it is not a good idea. Aside from the "inferiority" sentence, per Itsmejudith it seems that the most significant point of difference is that the new version says nothing about women being able to initiate divorce. Proabivouac 21:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

References should be next to the relevant text that has been sourced. That means they can be in the middle of a sentence if need be. If you place them at the end of a paragraph, it will not be clear what has been referenced. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Footnotes for the recommended style. Green Giant 21:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

i have been going over my rewrite, and i couldn't find which of the sources support the word `respect` (i may find it if i look over them again more closely), but the rest of it summarises Waines. Waines also writes the following (p. 95), which may help reconcile between the two passages Proabivouac presents:

"The roles of husband and wife are perceived as complementary, reflecting their different capacities and dispositions in conformity with the values of traditional patriarchal society. Since the man acts in the public sphere of the marketplace and government, his experience gained thereby means that in legal affairs the testimony of one man is equal to two women. The woman acts within the private sphere of the home, managing it and raising the children, which includes their moral training. By virtue of the husband's total financial responsibility for the family for the family, the wife is regarded as his subordinate (2:228). As a couple, on the other hand, both are equally responsible before Allah to lead their lives virtuously. This is made clear in Qur'anic verse (33:35) said to have been revealed when the Prophet was challenged by a woman to explain why it appeared that Allah only addressed the men of the community"

the bit about catering for the families well-being is on p. 94. regarding talaq, it is generally initiated by the husband, but there are a few exceptions (such as if the conditions for a wife's initiation are stipulated in the marriage contract, or if the husband is impotent, or insane) ITAQALLAH 22:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

On the initiation of divorce: this is the general article on Islam, which unfortunately, cannot cover all the specifics and special cases. See below on the consensus regarding the punishment for apostasy. To write that divorce is usually initiated by the husband is a safe bet. Beit Or 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but what if you meld together points from different sources to make a paragraph? The requirement to move all references to the end of the sentence was on our to-do list for a long time. A chore that I remember Itaqallah, Aminz and Merzbow getting stuck into, and I did a bit as well. Itsmejudith 22:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you meld together points from different sources, you should cite each bit of text from each source you use. Otherwise you risk heading down the slippery road of original research. If you look at this particular section it explains it somewhat better than I can. Green Giant 22:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The present introduction presents a false and negative view of Islam certainly compared to the article on Judaism. Very early in this introduction one reads about 'muslim conquests' and the 'imposition of the faith' but nowhere on the Judaism introduction is there any mention of the fact that ancient Israel was established by the genocide of the indigenous peoples of that area which is well accounted in the historical records of Judaism itself - the Old Testament or Torah. Therefore it is highly irresponsible and propagandistic to present this featured article when it is not at all NPOV. User: Langdell 1st July 2007 17:55 GMT

Langdell, the change was recently introduced by User:Al-Andalus. [34]. it is not part of the consensus version. ITAQALLAH 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It will be nice to restore to concensus version as Itaqallah indicated above instead of adding tags. --- A. L. M. 17:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please try to maintain the consensus (pre-TFA) intro instead of adding dispute tags to the wrong version. Such tags are considered disruptive on TFA. Savidan 17:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I only just noticed in the edit summary by User:AA, when he reverted my contribution, that there was some sort of contention against my edits. I added " Muslim conquests" simply because that is how Islam was spread for the most part, and it was merely stated to give an insight into why the Middle East and North Africa is now a predominantly Muslim region, since that fact was mentioned in the intro. Also, that was the name of that article, so it was typed as such.

I don't think that stating it is anymore removed from reality or POV than asserting that most of the world's Chrisitans today are Christian because at some stage in history their ancestors were converted by friars with a bible in one hand and a sword in the other. The natives and slaves of Brazil and Mexico from which most of the current populations of those countries can trace at least partial descent from, and the population of the Philippines which remains predominantly unmixed native, became Christian in that manner. Those three countries alone have a combined population of over 400 million people, and the spread of Christianity in this manner was the same in other ex-colonial countries.

I just thought it important to mention that Islam is not the only religion in the Middle East. Another reason for my edits was to point out that there are more Muslims in either South Asia or Southeast Asia than the Middle East. That's an important point. I've already removed the part about "adoption or imposition" 'cause i can see how some could possibly interpret the choice of words as biased against Islam. Perhaps "Muslims conquets" could be ommited also (although I still don't see how this could be viewed as biased, if it is fact... but, whatever) and merely state "Muslim expansion" (perhaps hyperlinked to the "Muslim conquests" article).

What do you guys thing? Al-Andalus 13:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"simply because that is how Islam was spread for the most part". It is your POV. We do not entertain POVs here. --- A. L. M. 13:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Al-Andalus is simply messing up with references and introduction [35]. Furthermore, he is making it, far form concesus version. It was written like that. "abcd REFERENCE". Now you he has changed it to "a(hisPOV) REFERENCE bcd". bcd which was referenced text are now coming after the reference and his POV which has NO refernece is now has one. Obviously all such changes will be reverted back. --- A. L. M. 13:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

POV? It no longer says "Muslims conquests" or "adoption or imposition". If there is any other concern strictly regarding POV in my contribution, then point it out. Otherwise, if it's about the mucking up of references, sorry. Can you fix those then, instead of also reverting the content? Al-Andalus 13:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, it would be nice to ask other about your change and then wait. After getting reply you change the introduction. [[Muslim conquests|expansion of Islam]] is your POV. In India Muslim rule for many 100 years but only 30% converted to Islam. World largest Muslim country is conquest by no one. We agree that Islamic rule expand with conquest but not Islam (for example wast majority of Indians, spanish are still non-Muslims). Hence do not add your POV and disputed contents without long discussions on talk page. Please. --- A. L. M. 13:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case remove the hyperlink. You don't need to revert the entire contribution. "Expansion of islam" without a hyperling will do fine. Think how to work with the contributions of others, not on how to prevent others from contributing at all. And as i said to you on your talk page, according to Islam by country, in the Islam by region section, sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia each have larger Muslim populations than either the Middle East or North Africa. How is mentioning that a POV? It's an important point. I suggest the article reflect that reality, and you stop deleting that information. Also, Islam is not the only religion in the Middle East. There are other religious communitites, including Christians, Druze, Jews, Zoroastrianism, etc., unless you deny their existance, or would possibly need sources for something as blatantly obvious as that. Al-Andalus 14:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The other reason I undid your changes was because it has messed up references. Anyway, I just have friendly suggestion for you, 1) to discuss, 2) change when other say okay, 3) provide sources, 4) do not undid other people work (like messing up with references). Anyway, please do not have any wrong feeling towards me. I had really less time so I reverted them instead of changing. I hope that this is my last contribution of the day. Wassalam. --- A. L. M. 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the " World's largest Muslim country" (Indonesia), Islam too was mostly spread via the rule and influence of Islamic Kingdoms, in this case Sultanates, whose royal houses and families were established and ruled by small groups of the first Muslims who initially introduced Islam to those areas during the trade era. It's how it happened thoughout the entire Malay Archipeilago, including the Philippines (before the Filipinos were further converted to Catholicism by the Spanish). And also, much of Spain was Muslim at one point too, and I'm talking about indigenous Spaniards who converted to Islam after the establishment of the Caliphates in Iberia by expanding kingdoms comming in from North Africa, but then reconverted to Christianity upon the Catholic Reconquista. Al-Andalus 14:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

i'm not sure what the comparison with friars weilding swords is meant to to imply. the previous version of the insertion also noted imposition. it is the Islamic state that expanded through military conquest - for significant periods of time, however, the majority of the population under the state were non-Muslim. the latest insertion, while less opinionated, is a bit simplistic and generalised. ITAQALLAH 17:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, my only contention has only ever been in the fact that the article currently states that Islam is th predominant religion of the Middle East, but fails to mention that religious minorities do exist. Also, after stating that Islam is the predominant religion in the Middle East, it then goes on to say that there are also other large population in other individually mentioned areas. However, one of the other areas said to "also" have "large" populations of Muslims has just as many as the Middle East, while two other areas that were mentioned each conain up to twice the number of Muslims than the Middle East. That is my contention. Al-Andalus 09:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

i see your point. if one says, Islam is the predominant religion in the region, it automatically implies that other minorities exist (as opposed to saying Islam is the only religion in the region). ITAQALLAH 09:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The rest (i.e. the friars comment) was just in reply to a user who took offence after assuming the "muslim conquests" part of my initial contribution was done with some kind of bias or as an attack. The comparison was made just to indicate that there was no bias intended, and that the same could have been said on the Christianity article. And as a note, the only reason I even added the "muslim conquests" (or later, the defused but still objected and deleted, "expansion of Islam") bit into the paragraph was to illustrate why the Middle East is in fact predominantly Muslim today; which again, relates to my main reason for comming to this article and contributing in the first place. Al-Andalus 10:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not clear. Do you you have any more issues after the clarification that predominant implies that others religion exist? As an aside, Muslim conquests and Spread of Islam have links further down as full blown articles and topics that covers the details. Simply put, there is a debate about the mechanism which is better addressed in those articles.-- Tigeroo 10:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You ask if i have any more issues after the clarification that predominant implies that others religion exist. Well, simply put, no. And i've already said that. I wouldn't care if the "muslim conquests" or other wording ("expanision of islam") is taken out, the only reason i put them is as an aside as to why the middle east is largely Muslim now (since that is what was stated). The reason for my contribution wasn't in relation to the topic of expansion or conquests at all. And as I stated before, the only other thing i wanted was for the intro to mention that Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia have twice as many Muslims as the Middle East or North Africa, while Southeast Asia has just as many. Currently, it reads as though Islam in the middle east is predominant and numerically the most important, and that's simply not true. That's about it really. Al-Andalus 11:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the following:

Although, Islam is the principal religion throughout the Middle East, only 20 percent of Muslims come from Arab countries. The largest muslim population is found in South and Southeast Asia with other communities located in Africa, Central Asia, China, Western Europe, the Balkan Peninsula, and Russia.

→ AA ^{( talk • contribs)} — 13:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage (to put it nicely) that anyone who feels the need to put template tags wait until tomorrow to do so. It's blatantly disruptive behavior on a Main Page featured article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. --- A. L. M. 17:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it blatantly disruptive to do edits like this one [36] knowing that the article is on the Main Page? Beit Or 17:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

the same can be asked of disruptive edits like this. ITAQALLAH 17:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a disruptive edit, but a minor correction based on reliable sources. However, what about this streak of edits [37]? Beit Or 17:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That was the version of yesterday. It was discussed on talk page and created with concensus. Until you ( Beit) came and started editing without any concensus. --- A. L. M. 17:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't pretend you were not there, ALM. This article has been the subject of an edit war during this whole day and for several days before that. Beit Or 17:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

in each instance, the dispute centered around your unilateral rewrites of sections without regard for consensus, nor actually proposing your changes first. ITAQALLAH 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember making any edits re Sikhism, for example. My changes, however, won consensus and approval, as the sections in question have been stable for pretty long. Beit Or 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Beit Or is being scapegoated for an entire night's worth of disruption involving perhaps a dozen editors (I haven't counted,) fighting over a large number of things, many of which had nothing to do with Beit Or's earlier edits. Moreschi had it right when he described the situation as a "bloody mess."

That said, I don't think it can't be denied that the failure to introduce these changes on talk and solicit the review of other editors, including a willingness to compromise where appropriate, contributed to an atmosphere of contention. This article had developed a culture of extreme caution accompanied by extensive discussion which is not generally present on Wikipedia, and one can argue that Beit Or transgressed these unofficial local norms. The solution, I think, is obvious - is for everyone to stay engaged on talk, and do so as cheerfully as possible, so we can avoid this kind of social blowout in the future.

It's also not appropriate that a section like Jihad, which had been relatively stable for some time, was disrupted when the article was on the main page. Who did that? Not Beit Or. Proabivouac 01:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about my edit please look up and all over this page. The version sat proposed for a good while after extensive discussions. You were the only one commented and those comments were incorporated. To me it seems unless you actually make the edit, no one else is really going to act or really comment on your proposals. My response to the revert was not a edit war either but a discussion with the editor who edited my proposal. Let me take the opportunity to once again remind you of my sourced edit which I believe will round off the rather narrow prism the jihad section was trapped in.-- Tigeroo 15:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you been doing your utmost, Beit Or, to calm down the warring parties and keep the article in the high quality that won it FA? Itsmejudith 17:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Beit FA-review comments everybody should check, where is openly says that he will invite others to vote against FA status. He is the one who evaluate Islam first GA review, even knowing that he edit with strong POV (and he should not review). Well we have difference to present and these are no accusation. Even the current edit war start after his radical changes. --- A. L. M. 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As an editor with several FA's under his belt (four FA's in serious subjects, with two main page appearances), clearly Beit Or didn't believe the article merited FA status. Most of his objections improved the article, in my opinion. It's a shame that the discussion broke down into charges and countercharges, as it has here. All this did was cut short the discussion, and leave us with bad blood and hard feelings. Proabivouac 00:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hurray!

I highly appreciate this. Five start for this change of User:Moreschi. --- A. L. M. 17:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

don't you mean " hurray"? ^_^ ITAQALLAH 17:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

yes. :) --- A. L. M. 17:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The page is now back at its version as of yesterday, before it went on the Main Page. While you may edit it, I must ask you not to edit war. Anyone who does, I will block for the rest of the day. Fair enough? Moreschi ^Talk 18:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree - I see no reason for "involved" editors to make substantive edits while it's on the Main Page - there's been plenty of time for these to have been made prior to today. Please stick to vandal reversion. Changes that were made by some of the uninvolved editors were quite useful. → AA ^{( talk • contribs)} — 18:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. It's disappointing that so many involved editors felt it was a good idea to make substanial changes today. Even if you're sure that your changes are for the better and you're sure that the changes has been discussed extensively, any involved editor should have noticed by now that most substanial changes are likely to result in a revert war and as such should not be attempted while the article is on the main page (or even a day or two before it) Nil Einne 18:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Disappointing, but sadly predictable. Proabivouac 20:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone, The Islam article and the opening lines were on the front page today. I read the bit about the root of Islam meaning "to submit". Since the root letters are S-L-M, is it not correct that there is a dual root, i.e. 'silm' (submission) and 'salam' (peace)?

What do we think, has it been discussed before or something? Do I have permission to add this / somebody else add it? Thanks.

-- 82.46.212.51 19:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Usman 1/7/2007

Ah ok, I just noticed it has been discussed. I'll read that then maybe get back to you...

You are absolutely correct. The lead of this article is, whether or not the editors have realised it, subtly Islamophobic putting Islam, once again, in a bad light. This is, as we all know, a favourite pastime of the western media but should not be tolerated in scholarly articles which should reflect reality as it is and not distort it. The lead is unnacceptable because the use of the word submission to define Islam is misleading. The word Islam is derived from the same root as the words salaam and shalom which mean 'peace'. To define Islam as meaning simply 'submission' or 'surrender' is a subtle form of villification and distortion that puts into the mind of the naive the notion that Islam somehow requires 'submission and surrender'. The prophet Muhammed taught that 'there is no compulsion in religion'. The present lead should not be presented in a featured article because it is not written in accordance with the NPOV policy. Langdell 19:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Either way, please leave it for tomorrow. That's only 4/5 hours away. Please cite reliable sources for what you are saying, in accordance with this policy, otherwise what you propose is simply original research. But please do so tomorrow, because if you edit war now, I'll block you until this gets off the main page. You've now been reverted over this material twice. Moreschi ^Talk 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Langdell, you are utterly incorrect. This has been amply discussed above, although I credit you for being the first to state outright that you are concerned with the political connotations of the translation, rather than its accuracy.

Islam is submission to God, not to other Muslims. This is quite different from God being found inside you or God being your personal friend, to mention just two common deistic conceptions outside of Islam. It is also different from submission to mankind and man-made laws, in fact it might be thought of as freedom from these and from ignorance. Proabivouac 20:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat OT but do note that none of these are mutually exclusive. Catholicism for example (I know because I used to be one) teaches all three of them to some extent. Note also that requiring submission to God doesn't necessarily imply compulsion. Even if Islam expects one to submit to God, it doesn't mean that there should be compulsion for people to embrace Islam and submit to God. Nil Einne 21:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And that is exactly why the article does not say that "Islam" means "being compelled to submit to God." Langdell's statement that the word "Islam" means "entering into a condition of peace and security with God through allegiance or surrender to him," is ridiculously interpretive, tendentious and, from a semantic standpoint, transparently false. Good translations are minimal not maximal, and grounded in uncontroversial denotation, not subjective and debatable connotation. One could write any number of competing volumes on what Islam "means," indeed this article is about what Islam "means." Our goal here is only to provide a practical translation of the Arabic word "Islam." Proabivouac 23:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"In contrast, liberal Islam is a movement that attempts to reconcile religious tradition with modern norms of secular governance and human rights."

I don't think liberals in this context try to 'reconcile religious tradition with modern norms', since they do away with so many of the core religious traditions. How can a group 'reconcile Islam with the modern era' if they do away with what is in the Qur'an? Surely this is a misleading explanation of what Liberal Islam is?

Thanks.-- 82.46.212.51 19:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

the `reconciliation` is typically done by reinterpreting the primary texts to reach a conclusion in accordance with their own views. i don't think liberal Muslims claim to reject the Qur'an. ITAQALLAH 19:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It takes a special talent for distortion to reconcile the Qur'an and Sunna with the mores of contemporary liberalism (or pacifism, as has been suggested above.) There are some points of agreement, of course - for example both are opposed to racism and caste systems - but Islam cannot be subordinated to a secular humanistic outlook, or any other human-invented ideology, without losing its vitality and credibility. Proabivouac 03:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Islam isn't yours to define, Proa, it belongs to all the Muslims. I don't see many of them trying to subordinate Islam to any other outlook, but I do see people honestly trying to understand how their religion can bring harmony to their everyday lives. If you look up the websites on liberal Islam you will find them brimming with youthful vitality - as to credibility time alone will tell. Itsmejudith 21:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This material [38] is unsourced, POV and irrelevant to the introductory article on Islam. It must be removed. Beit Or 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Gone. Moreschi ^Talk 20:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little uncomfortable about the intro statement that Muhammad PBOH originated Islam. This is the approach I would take as a historian, but I think it's not right from the standpoint of Islamic theology. Islam is delivered by the prophets and Muhammad is the final, culminating prophet. Most Muslim textbooks seem to present Islam as something present since Creation and in a sense, therefore, Adam is the human founder of Islam. Clearly, there is also a special place reserved for Ibrahim, and probably for Jesus too, in any theological account of the origins of Islam. I don't like adding to the intro. I am not a Muslim and would hate to mess up something that has probably cost a lot of thought and discussion already, so this is just a point for discussion. Might it be better to try for a formulation that Islam was consolidated or crystallized or brought to a definition (perhaps a good word because it carries a sense of finality) in the message of Muhammad?

I'm not sure what version you're referring to but the current version [39] seems fine to me. It adequately sumarises the Muslim POV from what I can see "They do not regard Muhammad as the founder of a new religion, but as the restorer of the original monotheistic faith of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.". If this isn't sufficient for you, I believe the issue was discussed in the Muhammad article and the discussion there may be useful for consideration here. Nil Einne 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You might be right. It's a point with quite a lot of sensitivities clustering around it, though. Islam's claim to represent a much older tradition of monotheism is an important part of its interpretation of history, as well as being not inherently implausible. Once accepted, Muhammad is not a founder or originator but a completer or fulfiller. Obviously, any formulation that compromises his finality is not likely to win assent from most Muslims, and I think stressing originality might do just that. Certainly some of the textbooks that Sunni organizations in the UK use with kids specifically take issue with the notion of Islam originating with Muhammad and make a point of dealing with other prophets first. It's true that the second paragraph is much better formulated. I'm not sure I'm best qualified to say whether that's enough.

As the section on Jihad is now written, it directly contradicts the article on jihad in tenor and substance. I happen to think the jihad article is correct, and this article is in error. This needs to be reconciled. This article is presenting Islam in an inaccurate as well as unflattering light. Amity150 21:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Jihad article is a mess. Even so, I cannot see what is contradictory. Proabivouac 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well I try to put it into words for you, then. I have NEVER heard a Muslim say that jihad means a war of obliteration of other religions, in which others are forced to convert at point of the sword. There is no basis for that in Islamic theology, and that is not how it has worked over the centuries, either! In contrast to much of Europe's sad history of religious intolerance, relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in Muslim countries has been one of relatively peaceful coexistence. If jihad means what *you think* it means, then surely we can find multiple examples of this phenomenon, forced conversions at the point of a sword, throughout history right? Have you got any examples? That is just for starters. See the article on Islamic relations with Europe (or some similar title) which is also in Wikipedia. To tell you the truth, I was reading this article, thinking to myself "yes, allright, okay, I see that" until I came to the section on jihad, at which point my B.S.-o-meter shot off the Richter scale and I read no further. You really need to do more subtle research before putting something like that in print. Totally irresponsible imho, especially when there are good, well researched articles available right here in Wikipedia. A scandal to have it on the front page, and I am relieved it has now been removed. Musta slipped by the editors. I DO think the article on relations between Islam and the West would be a great candidate for a front page article, though! Amity150 01:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the article: it lists many religions which are not to be "obliterated," but have reserved places under Islamic rule. The article makes it quite clear that the historical aim of jihad is the expansion and defense of the Islamic state. And until colonialism, yes, that is indeed exactly how it has worked over many of the preceding centuries: as the history sections illustrate, the majority of what is now the Islamic world became such by being conquered by one or another Islamic Caliphate. Indeed, that is how it worked in Muhammad's own lifetime, which you may be aware is one of the central bases of Islamic doctrine: by definition, one cannot construe Islam in such a way that Muhammad's life lies outside of it. Proabivouac 01:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Christianity has been rather conquest oriented at times in its existence as well, and they had their scriptures to support their actions, too! Most religions have. Accept Islam's own internal view of its teachings, including the Koran, and present that along with the inaccurate short-version diatribe. That would be a better approach to maintaining a neutral POV in this article. Amity150 03:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

the article is wrong, here is a quote from a Quran translated to english talking about jihad "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.228.206 ( talk • contribs)

Shouldn't this: "From textual evidence, modern Western academics find that the Qur'an of today has not changed significantly over the years." be changed to "has not changed at all"?

the arabic Quran has never changed, however there are discrapancies in Qurans translated to other languages—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.228.206 ( talk • contribs)

also "Jihad means "to strive or struggle," and is considered the "sixth pillar of Islam" by a minority of Muslim authorities.[54] Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state, the ultimate purpose of which is to establish the universal domination of Islam. Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule.[55] Jihad is perpetual in nature; in theory, there can be no permanent peace with non-Muslim states, only truces which can be repudiated when circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities. It ceases when Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians submit to the authority of Islam and agree to pay the jizya (a poll tax) and kharaj (a land tax), and when polytheists convert to Islam. Those who do not accept these terms may be enslaved or killed.[55] For most Shias, jihad can only be waged in the presence of a divinely appointed leader of the Muslim community, and as such is suspended in their absence.[55]"

this is wrong, Jihad is used as defense, but cant always used as offense for non-islamic people that believe in one God, and there isnt necessarily an extra tax, it says they should pay tax, however this is required by all muslims, most rulers tranlate the tax to mean extra tax however it could also mean the same tax that muslims pay, and in that case as long as they obey the law (i.e. dont steal, dont kill, no adultry) and they dont discriminate against muslims then there cant be jihad called on them (not Islamiclly anyways), the only time this is untrue is if they are polytheists, since in Islam placing another to gods level is the greatest sin anyone can make, also slavery is against islam and is not allowed—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.228.206 ( talk • contribs)

also the word islam also means peace, it is derived from the word salam, which also means peace, (but does not have the double meaning to give one-self as islam does), think about the greeting as-SALAMu `alaykum (peace be unto you), also islam is a dervitive of a second word eslim which means to give or give up, im not saying it cant also be a dervitive of aslama (which if im right, i think it should actually be al salama), i dont know enough arabic to say, but i know the other two are right—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.228.206 ( talk • contribs)

We have discussed this extensively. The scholars never say Islam means peace. It is a myth. Islam means submission.-- Sefringle ^Talk 07:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, a non-problematic wording suggestion (I don't have permission to edit): change he wording in the introduction from "adherents" to "an adherent", so as to establish grammatical symmetry with "one who submits". 83.254.157.130 07:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Bless sins 20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I found this source [40], that says the word Islam is derived form aslama (meaning to surrender/submit/resign) and related to the word salama meaning peace. What do you guys think? Bless sins 20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a simplified version of a point Itaqallah spelt out in full grammatical terms. Itsmejudith 21:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The section on denominations of Islam now mentions Sikhism and Hinduism as denominations of Islam. "Sikhism's holy book, the Guru Granth Sahib, contains some writings by Muslim figures, as well as by Sikh and Hindu saints"

What? -- Aminz 02:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't say anything about Sikhism and Hinduism being denominations of Islam. Proabivouac 02:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is under the heading of "Denominations/others" -- Aminz 02:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the intro to Jihad to give a fuller description. Lots of editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the current version and appear to have only restrained themselves so as not to start an edit-war rather than because the version enjoys consensus approval. Sources have been provided and even expounded in various others posts on this page. i.e. the military connotation was a sub-set arising in the Medinan period, jihad was known in the Meccan period as well. 8th century text talking about four types of jihad. No author who talks about jihad, does so exclusively of the warfare aspect. Fi sabi Alliah is almost always used as addendum when the term is used in arabic and religious texts.-- Tigeroo 06:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, I do not want to get into a revert war here. If the comments on this page are anything to go by on the section. If anything it is clear that infact there is infact no concensus on the way the section stands. Plus in wikipedia consensus can change, especially when more editors get involved or new data is made available. You have not explained why any of the material is against consensus so that the issue can be suitably addressed. Everything is sourced and easily verifiable from not one, but multiple sources. There was no deletion either, but an expansion to correct what has been clearly state by many as a deficient section.-- Tigeroo 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo, I am disappointed to see that you have misrepresented your source. You wrote "Jihad (Jihad fi sabi'lilah) is an Islamic duty meaning "to strive or struggle in the way of god" in an effort to create a godly community." and cited this to Humphreys. What does Humphreys (1999: 175) actually say?

To begin with, the term "Jihad" does not mean "Holy War." as it is commonly and misleadingly translated. It means, literally, "to strive with all one one's might"

To include the phrase Jihad fi sabi'lilah in parentheses and then offer a translation of that (which even so is not the one given by your source) is a literary bait-and-switch which approaches dishonesty. So where did you get "in an effort to create a godly community?"

Moreover, we have seen that Islam is a religion of social and political action, because it is rooted in the imperative to create a godly community. Human nature being what it is, that imperative sometimes requires a resort to jihad.

That's not saying that "jihad" means that, it it? Not even close. Proabivouac 07:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Probivouac I am disappointed that you have selectively and incompletely read the source before beginning to comment on its meaning. Please take the time to read the page, and even the pages preceding and following it to understand just what he is talking about.

1)While godly community is expressly mentioned by him on page 174 like you note. He spends a good while talking about Jihad and it meaning direction action to improve society on the next few pages as well. See page 175 for a more relevant direct link between jihad and godly community:

The struggle to build a godly community takes two forms - or better falls into two categories of moral action - jihad and...(skipping the enjoin good forbid evil one)

On the next pages he goes and expressly links the second action effort also as an extension of jihad (.. "is one level simply simply a form of jihad"). His connection with Jihad and its imperative towards a godly community is not a one-off offhand mention at all.

2)As for sabih lillah did you miss the next sentence? Or the fact that in the rest of his writings he is always linking Jihad expressly to in the way of god?

..the full phrase is normally "Jihad fi sabi Allah"...

The whole point of Jihad is further the cause of god/Islam. Struggle.. struggle for what? The cause is god/Islam. Without that completion the notion of Jihad in the Islamic sense is incomplete. In the way of god is all over academic references to jihad. If you want to add this as a second sentence it's not a problem. Again, this reference to jihad fi sabi Allah or in the way of god is not unique to him, it can be found everywhere. If you need more I can easily do that.

I am not even sure what you are implying by bait-and-switch, if you mean that he does not say it is only warfare please look at this sentence "It is not carried out to merely defeat the enemies of Islam, but it is first and foremost a struggle to create a just and righteous social order."-- Tigeroo 07:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo, it was exactly when I examined the source in detail that I concluded that you'd misrepresented it. When our only cited soure says, "the term jihad means XYZ," then we translate "jihad" as "XYZ" (ref). Picking out favored phrases from adjacent related paragraphs to cobble together our own translation isn't acceptable.

"Bait-and-switch" is when I sell you one thing ("jihad") but ship you another ("(jihad fi sabi'lilah)"). Even so, you didn't follow Humphrey's translation of the parenthesized phrase, either. Proabivouac 07:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is another way of saying things other than resorting to personal attacks. I skipped the fuller translation for convenience/laziness, it is easily referenceable also, and I accept my error on that score when I used one of myriad of possible contracted translations. Remember give others the benefit of doubt. Would this be a better go then? Jihad (simple meaning XYZ) or Jihad fi sabil Allah (fuller meaning of the Islamic conception). Also, it is one and the same thing, not two different things for it to be a bait-and-switch. All I am saying is "Jihad" is a truncation of the fuller form (run a search on google books if you must for verifiction it's that simple). Even Robert Spencer got that part of it. Jihad meaning to struggle or strive is not "wrong", just incomplete, something no encyclopedic effort should not miss. Thats my only issue with the section as it stands, it is incomplete/insufficient on many fronts, and I am not talking about details here.-- Tigeroo 07:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Concepts merit explanations, not translations. When we say what "jihad" means, the reader will expect a straightforward and honest translation. For example, "democracy" means "rule by the people." It doesn't mean "rule by the people instead of rule by aristocrats." That's a valid extrapolation, both intellectually and historically, and quite true, but not a principled translation. Proabivouac 08:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can agree with that concept, except I am not sure quite how it is applicable in this instance. The Arabic word Jihad mentioned here is a contraction of short-form commonly used for the Islamic concept Jihad fi Sabil Allah. It is not that Jihad fi Sabil Allah is an extrapolation of Jihad but an inverted representation, which is why so many authors translate Jihad with the addendum. In my version I offered the full version in parenthesis to represent the full form as an equivalent or Arabic/Islamic rendition of the form they are likely to be more familiar with on account of brevity instead of rendering it as "Jihad fi Sabi Allah or more commonly referred to as Jihad". The offered was then a translation of the fuller form (more informative), and then offered a clarification on how the translation reflected the concept. I also added the "Islamic duty" qualifier as well to explain to re-orient the translation offered. I think readers coming to the article are more interested in how the term is translated and conceived of in reference to the article topic (Islam), than a dictionary version. There are obviously many ways to do this, by no means is my version the only or even the best/correct way to achieve this. If it is only a question of detailing the best way to represent this we don't have a problem.-- Tigeroo 09:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If it helps any, to clarify or ease matters. I do not have a jihad is no war POV. War was definitely an instrument of Jihad. One that stemmed from a conviction of the necessity towards establishing a godly community and the supremacy of god's law, including an assumption that this was impossible to do so under non-muslim rule. In that regard the conception was no different from colonialism in that it regarded itself as a force for social change, one that was correcting injustice and wrong in the world by providing the perfect legal/social/moral codes. That does not imply that it was the only view. It had it's detractors and supporters from within as can be seen by the defensive war proponents becoming more vocal and influential at the turn of the millennium and the internal struggle versions of the modernists today. All three strains of thought on jihad have however existed from the very beginning, their dominance and influence has varied over time. I believe the article as it stands today is trapped in a narrow prism, both in the spectrum of coverage and timeline. Nothing in it is specifically wrong, it is just incomplete.-- Tigeroo 10:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but the Jihad paragraph contains original biased research .. For example this sentence: "the ultimate purpose of which is to establish the universal domination of Islam". Now this needs a citation. And I have no info from the Quran or Sunna that says that muslims should strive for world domination. The paragraph is in a mess and is unacceptable. Get a citation(s) please (from the Quran or Sunna) or we will have to put citation needed marks all over these non-backed-up claims. Check wikipedia's policy of verifiability---Anon

For the sake of keeping the thread from getting hijacked. The source is the Encyclopedia of Islam as marked in the next sentence. Also you have world domination wrong, the cart before the donkey so to speak, it is more about the primacy of Islam. Try the fuqaha who interpret/ have interpreted the sunna and quran, in the past. Syed Qutb can summarize it for you as well. It may not be a reflection of what you believe, or even hear of or may even be the prevalent conception today. Again this is just another example of the narrow prism/ time capsule and narrow confine that the section is trapped in today.-- Tigeroo 14:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there multiple other sources that support the claim, "the ultimate purpose of which [jihad] is to establish the universal domination of Islam" or is it only the EoI that says it? → AA ^{( talk • contribs)} — 14:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the citation. I agree with AA that you cannot claim that this encyclopedia is the universal standard. You have to back it up. In fact the Encyclopedia of Islam is written by European scholars representing their view. Thus rather than referring to the policies of verifiability, you can easily call this section into question for neutrality. I guess it is both inaccurate and biased when you refer to the above source when it contradicts what you can come up with (using some more extra simple research) tens of direct citations directly from the Quraan itself backed up by explanation from Scholars (European and non-European), and published in authentic books, references, websites that contradicts the claim above - Especially when the article mentions above that the main source of Islamic law is the Quraan, thus making your mention of Sayed Qutb or any other author in this case irrelevant. I won't ask you to change the text immediately but you can temporarily put the sign of 'disputed neutrality' or better with the 'represents one view only' sign. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.70.50 ( talk • contribs)

Quoting from the Qur'an itself is not going to meet with the high referencing standards of this article, because it is a primary source. Work from scholars, from anywhere in the world, published in books or journals rather than websites is what is needed. Itsmejudith 09:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, the key question being asked is what other sources support this claim other than EoI. Hopefully, the editor(s) who added/supported this claim will be able to clarify (Beit Or/Proabivouac?). → AA ^{( talk • contribs)} — 09:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from AA, but up till now we've been using EoI as a reliable source. If it doesn't seem to us to be so reliable at this point, the best thing to do is to find a source or sources that offer a different interpretation and offer both views alongside each other. At least, that's the usual WP method. I may be missing some subtleties here. Since the anon says that many scholars contradict the EoI interpretation, it should be possible to find reliable sources to cite. Itsmejudith 09:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the status of EoI as a reliable source. However, if a view is only held by a single source we have to clarify that with an "according to" prefix unless other sources contradict it, in which case either both views should be presented or none. This is why I'm asking the editors who added that statement to clarify whether it is supported by multiple sources or just the EoI. Cheers. → AA ^{( talk • contribs)} — 10:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

the extract says:"The notion stems from the fundamental principle of the universality of Islam: this religion, along with the temporal power which it implies, ought to embrace to whole universe, if necessary by force." and "The duty of the jihād exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained." i haven't checked whether other sources share this assertion. ITAQALLAH 10:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That even makes sense the way it is used in EoI and ties into what I was talking about above, the concept of establishing a godly community and the conviction of it's rightness that should be available to all. In the Jihad section as it stands however it appears that there is an injuction to conquer the world by the sword only, without addressing the "if necessary" part of the equation at all which implies that there are other acknowledged ways to go about it as well. Again, the use of source has been to lock down only one aspect and view as the only one.-- Tigeroo 12:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am carefully reading Humphreys now, to better appreciate what we're missing here. It's somewhat of a confusing source.

For now, this sentence "This is done by supporting what is seen as right and correcting what is wrong…" is not supported by Humphreys (1999: 176), which is actually contrasting commanding good/forbidding evil with jihad as different means towards establishing an Islamic society. Proabivouac 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He calls it an "associated notion" and "one level simply a form of jihad". The reason is that they are overlapping concepts. When you read enough of his work a bit I think you will get that he is more making a case of how they are congruent rather than disparate ideas. Jihad is the activist realization of supporting good and forbidding evil and can range from sloganeering to taking up arms. See also Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia for the section on Jihad which appears to be slightly clearer by skipping exposition of concepts. I think you are getting confused by the notion that Jihad al-Akbar and al-asghar are the same thing as heart, tongue and hand. This is not strictly true, they are again both sub-sets of a the larger concept of jihad. That difference is based on internalization vs. public orientation. The traditional classic concept is calling for both personal accountability as well as public activism, you can conduct a jihad by demonstrating activist zeal, the sword is just one option but an extreme option (no getting away from the fact that it also has the strongest association but the main reason why many authors refuse to use Jihad as a straight translation to Holy War). When dealing with the legalities, the canon law deals with how this necessary evil, the military option {jihad al-sayf) may be resorted to in a legitimate/ ethical manner, i.e. against whom? By whom? How? and under what conditions? (here you have then have differences between jurists on offensive/ defensive notions or on how to deal with polytheists etc) The basic driving force is however the establishment of a godly society, wether your bent is defensive (Ibn Taymiyyah) or Offensive (Averroes). The concepts of Shahid and Jihad existed even in Meccan times and beyond with meanings that went beyond just the battlefield concepts.-- Tigeroo 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In this series of edits, there are problems.

• I see the real reasons for the Umayyad's downfall, as portayed by the sources, replaced with some facts which are intended to show that the Umayyads were overthrown because they weren't truly Islamic. To top it all off, we start the section with a "despite." I think the addition of Esposito here explains a lot, though Aminz recently perpertrated an egregious misrepresentation of sources (see User_talk:Tom_harrison#Aisha) so it could be his own work.

• As noted, this: "Islam prescribes mutual respect and responsibility among family members, along with legal rights and obligations" is banal.

• This POV: "According to the Oxford Dictionary of Islam, this is in violation of Quranic teaching" is not relevant here because this article is not an apology for Islam.

These edits are pretty good, though the Sikhism bit still needs more work, as on the face of it, many Hindu beliefs and practices and Islamic beliefs and practice are completely opposed. It would be better phrased " Sikhism, founded by Guru Nanak in late fifteenth century Punjab, incorporates aspects of both Islam and Hinduism." Arrow740 05:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not acknowledging the contribution that dissatisfaction with the regime on the religious level is also an oversight. Religious distaste with the religion did ALSO factor into it, infact it plagued the Umayyad Khilafat through the entirety of it's reign. I am sure this can be easily be fixed by an inclusive version that bridges the two versions rather than reversion.-- Tigeroo 06:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, you can read Esposito on the reasons for downfall of Umayyads. Sufism was a reactionary movement against Ummayads. So was the formation of the schools of Islamic law. Please check the source first. The "mutual respect" bit may be removed per Proab's argument. Lastly, the issue of divorce is on the point.-- Aminz 08:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, this revert doesn't explain why you undid my copyedit of a passage in the "Other religions" section, as initially proposed by Proabivouac. ITAQALLAH 10:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Do the sources not say that the various schools of jurisprudence hold that a sane male apostate must be executed? Arrow740 13:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is saying otherwise atm either. By mentioning an exception applied to women by some it implies none for men.-- Tigeroo 13:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

apostasy is punishable by death, that's the general rule. we have no reason to use imperatives here, which ultimately give the prose a more forceful tone. ITAQALLAH 17:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Either one seems fine to me, except that one is shorter. As space in this main article is precious, that consideration seemed to me more compelling than the need to specify the disagreement about the proper punishment of apostate women. Proabivouac 19:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

<reset> Apostasy being punishable by death is believed by giants like Wael Hallaq to be a post-quranic and post-prophetic idea(e.g. see the occasion for revelation of ^{[ Quran  2:256} where some people converted to Christianity from Islam). Some contemporary Shi'a jurists, scholars and writers too disagree with the general rule. So, we should not say it is so as a general rule. -- Aminz 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Another "giant" whose article you just now created. Anyhow, being post-Qur'anic/post-prophetic hardly means it's not part of Islam. So far as I know, it is based (at least) upon exactly what core beliefs such as Muhammad being the final prophet are based upon, the purported (extra-Qur'anic) sayings of Muhammad. Proabivouac 20:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If someone edits the apostasy article in Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, he should have some credentials. His article being recently created has nothing to do with all these. What is the point behind your ironic language?

As I said before, this is an important point (for two above mentioned reasons) and we should not simply say "Islam says punishment for apostasy is X". -- Aminz 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What I see again and again in article after article is some wishing to draw such passages out in lurid detail, perhaps to strengthen their impact, while you Aminz wish to draw the discussion out with a series of caveats and rebuttals, to the point where readers might legitimately wonder if there is any agreement at all on what constitutes Islam. One of the ironies is that your ceaseless mainspace hand-wringing can only cue the readers that there is something about Islam with which Wikipedia editors are deeply uncomfortable, for which apologies are necessary. I feel very caught in the middle trying to keep things on track. This is the main article, and it is expected and completely okay that not everything is explored in great detail. There is hardly any point on which there cannot be found someone to disagree or agree only with qualification; there are other articles Apostasy in Islam in which these details can be explored. Proabivouac 20:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing how the world looks like (as a third person) from your perspective. But it looks differently from my perspective.

Coming back to Apostasy issue: No. There is no disagreements over what constitutes Islam. The pillars of faith are fixed. These are just legal details which has nothing to do with what what constitutes Islam. And here we have a serious POV: That the punishment for Apostasy has no roots in the Qur'an nor does it have in the authentic sayings of Muhammad. -- Aminz 20:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, you come here and you call Hallaq a "giant" and provide a wikilink to his article, wherein lo, it is stated that he is one of the leading scholars in his field. But look at the history - you created that article, and the peacock claim is sourced to Hallaq's own page! Now you revert to keep it. [41] Whatever your intentions, this has the appearance of dishonesty. Proabivouac 20:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That he is a leading scholar in Islamic law, that he has edited say Encyclopedia of the Qur'an (apostasy article) could be checked through references provided. What is wrong with using university homepages?

What I can observe here is a sense similar to that of "Antisemitism": Since Aminz has created it, there has to be something wrong with it. Speak at the level of facts please. -- Aminz 20:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is just getting silly, Aminz. Beit Or 20:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)